Texas Law That Bans Abortion Before Many Women Know They're Pregnant Takes Effect

[Dill]

Betting this will have to come before the Trump Supreme Court sometime.

Most interesting--the provision which encourges moral entrepreneurs to finger offenders and effectively prosecute them on
their own initiative.

Texas Law That Bans Abortion Before Many Women Know They're Pregnant Takes Effect
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033171800/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-

Legislation banning abortions after about six weeks is now the law of the land in Texas, effectively ending Roe v. Wade protections in the state.

In a move that surprised some high court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't act on an emergency request to stop the law from taking effect by midnight Tuesday. It allowed the policy to go ahead despite court challenges.

On Wednesday, President Biden called the law "extreme" and said it "blatantly violates" the constitutional right to abortion, adding that his administration will protect and defend that right.

The Texas law, passed in May, bans all abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy — well before many women even know they are pregnant. The policy conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents, which prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, usually between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Texas' new law is one of the most strict abortion bans in the nation.

It also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion, including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance in obtaining an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing. If they prevail, the law entitles them to a minimum of $10,000 in damages, plus attorneys' fees.

[BigPapaKain]

My favorite part is the defendant gets nothing if they win these idiotic cases.

It's cool though. I can't wait to see the body count of the back alley abortions.

[Au165]

This actually could grind the Texas court system to a halt because of how easily and frivolous this law has made lawsuits in this realm. There are going to be unintended consequences here that the legislators didn’t account for that will eventually be the undoing of it.

From a larger picture standpoint, this actually will help galvanize the democratic base. They have claimed for years Roe vs Wade would be overturned if Republicans got the chance and now you have a direct shot at it. This close to the midterm probably wasn’t the best timing for this because GOP actually had built some steam up but this will be a national battle cry to rally the troops that may push urgency to come out for mid terms which the incumbent party usually doesn’t.

[jj22]

"Interesting".. Texans spent the last year protesting with signs "my body, my choice".

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-02-2021, 12:58 PM)jj22 Wrote: "Interesting".. Texans spent the last year protesting with signs "my body, my choice".

Conservatives slogan all over the world should be : To each my own.

[*Nately120*]

Part of me wishes abortion had been made illegal 40 years ago just so I could see the old pro lifers attempt to live with an extra 50 million millenials.

I've just never met a pro lifer who doesn't openly lament at how many shitty worthless young people there are existing in this country. Ah well. 

[jj22]

Like gun laws people will just fly out of state to get an abortion. This is what they've done throughout history. They will find a way. Even slaves found a way (chewed a poisonous root).

The problem is the optics. These are all men making these decisions. Men that as soon as they get their mistress pregnant would be quick to give them $350 (or however much it costs) to get an abortion.

Also the problem is as everyone says, this same political party isn't willing to help these single mothers at all forcing them to have these babies and then slamming them for needed government support and calling them welfare queens. Not sure why anyone approves of this. If you force women to have kids, then you should at the very least help them support them, or at least not slam them for needing assistance.

[Dill]

(09-03-2021, 11:31 AM)jj22 Wrote: Like gun laws people will just fly out of state to get an abortion. This is what they've done throughout history. They will find a way. Even slaves found a way (chewed a poisonous root).

The problem is the optics. These are all men making these decisions. Men that as soon as they get their mistress pregnant would be quick to give them $350 (or however much it costs) to get an abortion.

Also the problem is as everyone says, this same political party isn't willing to help these single mothers at all forcing them to have these babies and then slamming them for needed government support and calling them welfare queens. Not sure why anyone approves of this. If you force women to have kids, then you should at the very least help them support them, or at least not slam them for needing assistance.

Pretty sure those Men-with-mistresses would say that women should stop having sex outside marriage. Maybe not their mistresses. But those others.

And they might tell women who are married to take precautions if they don't want a child. 

And ANY woman who gets pregnant should then assume the responsibiity for her actions by birthing and raising a child.

Sorry about the rape cases, but those unborn have a right to life too.

PS actually, not all women who want abortions DO "find a way," and some of those who do, die from the results. That was one of the
primary motivations for Roe vs Wade in the first place.

[Dill]

(09-01-2021, 07:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: This actually could grind the Texas court system to a halt because of how easily and frivolous this law has made lawsuits in this realm. There are going to be unintended consequences here that the legislators didn’t account for that will eventually be the undoing of it.

From a larger picture standpoint, this actually will help galvanize the democratic base. They have claimed for years Roe vs Wade would be overturned if Republicans got the chance and now you have a direct shot at it. This close to the midterm probably wasn’t the best timing for this because GOP actually had built some steam up but this will be a national battle cry to rally the troops that may push urgency to come out for mid terms which the incumbent party usually doesn’t.

Not to worry. R v Wade is "settled law." LOL 

Remeber this? Judges will "respect precedent."

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-collins-lisa-murkowski-trump-scotus-nominee-abortion-2018-6

[GMDino]

Just to note that if the defendant wins they are entitled to nothing at all.  Not even court/lawyer fees.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-03-2021, 12:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Not to worry. R v Wade is "settled law." LOL 

Remeber this? Judges will "respect precedent."

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-collins-lisa-murkowski-trump-scotus-nominee-abortion-2018-6

What's funny is anyone expected Handmaid's Tale and Kreeping Kavanaugh to actually do what they say. 

[Mickeypoo]

You guys realize that a woman does have a choice right?  She can choose to not have sex if she does not wish to become pregnant.

Just like you have the choice of finding a new job or inject something you don't want to into your body.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-03-2021, 02:38 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: You guys realize that a woman does have a choice right?  She can choose to not have sex if she does not wish to become pregnant.

Just like you have the choice of finding a new job or inject something you don't want to into your body.

Why would men be free to have sex and not women ?

Behind every pregnancy, there is a dude too and he can walk his own while the woman gets the baby for life.

[*Nately120*]

(09-03-2021, 02:38 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: You guys realize that a woman does have a choice right?  She can choose to not have sex if she does not wish to become pregnant.

Let's all just admit that we are all well aware that women can choose to not have sex.

[Dill]

(09-03-2021, 02:38 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: You guys realize that a woman does have a choice right?  She can choose to not have sex if she does not wish to become pregnant.

Just like you have the choice of finding a new job or inject something you don't want to into your body.

I raised this interpretation of women's "choice" in post #8.  

Can women choose not to get raped? 

The Texas law doesn't whether they did or not. Pregnant is pregnant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-03-2021, 12:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Not to worry. R v Wade is "settled law." LOL 

Remeber this? Judges will "respect precedent."

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-collins-lisa-murkowski-trump-scotus-nominee-abortion-2018-6

I'm not defending the Texas law here.  But it bears pointing out that at one point slavery was "settled law" and "precedent".  Am I equating slavery to abortion rights, no.  I am pointing out that simply resting your argument on "precedent" and "settled law" isn't necessarily a firm foundation on its own.

(09-03-2021, 03:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Why would men be free to have sex and not women ?

Behind every pregnancy, there is a dude too and he can walk his own while the woman gets the baby for life.

An interesting point, which raises a lot of further questions.  Assuming a consensual sexual encounter we have two parties agreeing to engage in an activity.  If the woman becomes pregnant the man now has zero say in that pregnancies outcome.  So, we no longer, potentially, have a consensual situation.  I, of course, understand that women have to carry the baby to term and bear the brunt of the process.  Dave Chapelle had an interesting point/joke recently.  If a woman can kill the baby a man should at least be able to abandon it.


If you really take stated feminist goals of equal treatment to their logical conclusion then would not the man have an equal say on the pregnancy?  If not should they be able to legally/financially sever all ties to said child?  Why or why not?

[Dill]

(09-03-2021, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not defending the Texas law here.  But it bears pointing out that at one point slavery was "settled law" and "precedent".  Am I equating slavery to abortion rights, no.  I am pointing out that simply resting your argument on "precedent" and "settled law" isn't necessarily a firm foundation on its own.

That would be my point to Sens. Collins and Murkowski, who argued that RvW was "settled law," 

so not to worry about Trump's appointees.

[*Nately120*]

(09-03-2021, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you really take stated feminist goals of equal treatment to their logical conclusion then would not the man have an equal say on the pregnancy?  If not should they be able to legally/financially sever all ties to said child?  Why or why not?

Letting men walk away from their responsibilities just pushes the burden on to others who didn't get to do the dance that summons the stork.  If some dude starts telling me he should be able to abandon his kids because of "equal rights" I'm just going to assume he's a cheap ass deadbeat who just wants someone else to foot the bill.

It's always about money, innit?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(09-03-2021, 02:38 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: You guys realize that a woman does have a choice right?  She can choose to not have sex if she does not wish to become pregnant.

Just like you have the choice of finding a new job or inject something you don't want to into your body.

The fact that you even have to defend this is ludicrous.

Cultist Church indeed...

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-03-2021, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not defending the Texas law here.  But it bears pointing out that at one point slavery was "settled law" and "precedent".  Am I equating slavery to abortion rights, no.  I am pointing out that simply resting your argument on "precedent" and "settled law" isn't necessarily a firm foundation on its own.


An interesting point, which raises a lot of further questions.  Assuming a consensual sexual encounter we have two parties agreeing to engage in an activity.  If the woman becomes pregnant the man now has zero say in that pregnancies outcome.  So, we no longer, potentially, have a consensual situation.  I, of course, understand that women have to carry the baby to term and bear the brunt of the process.  Dave Chapelle had an interesting point/joke recently.  If a woman can kill the baby a man should at least be able to abandon it.


If you really take stated feminist goals of equal treatment to their logical conclusion then would not the man have an equal say on the pregnancy?  If not should they be able to legally/financially sever all ties to said child?  Why or why not?

Usually they do. If they assume what they did. If not, it's complicated for the lady. 

There should be a very low abortion rate with people who are in love.