So, am I right in understanding that the people who sue folks suspected of aiding women getting an abortion don't have to have any proof? If so, then what is to stop someone who sees the governor of Texas, or one of the Texas legislators who voted for this miscarriage of justice, driving down the street to what may or may not be an abortion clinic from suing them? Multiple times?
So, am I right in understanding that the people who sue folks suspected of aiding women getting an abortion don't have to have any proof? If so, then what is to stop someone who sees the governor of Texas, or one of the Texas legislators who voted for this miscarriage of justice, driving down the street to what may or may not be an abortion clinic from suing them? Multiple times?
The law specifies that this is a civil suit, so the level of evidence required is consistent with that. "Preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And yes, there does seem to be some trolling involved.
So, am I right in understanding that the people who sue folks suspected of aiding women getting an abortion don't have to have any proof? If so, then what is to stop someone who sees the governor of Texas, or one of the Texas legislators who voted for this miscarriage of justice, driving down the street to what may or may not be an abortion clinic from suing them? Multiple times?
As weird as this law is procedurally, presumably the same general civil rule requiring a good faith basis for any factual claims alleged in the complaint applies. Lack of such a good faith basis makes any civil action subject to dismissal and the party—or lawyer—who filed it subject to sanctions.
Pro-choice users on TikTok and Reddit have launched a guerrilla effort to thwart Texas’s extreme new abortion law, flooding an online tip website that encourages people to report violators of the law with false reports, Shrek memes, and porn.
This is not subverting the system. It doesn't stop anyone from filing a lawsuit. It's just making it a bit more difficult for one anti-women group to collect possible leads. No abortion provider is going to perform an illegal abortion until and unless they are prepared to defend one of these suits, and since SCOTUS refused to intervene, this is just going to have to play out in civil court. Spamming that site is fun, but it accomplishes nothing.
Someone who didn't get their law degree from watching Law & Order should give the real answer, but to me it's always appeared that the SCOTUS can do whatever it damn well wants to. They can always refuse to hear a case, which means the lower court's ruling stands.
The Hill is reporting as breaking news that a Texas judge has halted the law (I'm sure temporarily):
“The Court finds that S.B. 8 creates a probable, irreparable, and imminent injury in the interim for which plaintiffs and their physicians, staff and patients throughout Texas have no adequate remedy at law if plaintiffs, their physicians, and staff are subjected to private enforcement lawsuits against them under S.B. 8,” Gamble wrote.
Who got this before a judge and how is not reported.
The Hill is reporting as breaking news that a Texas judge has halted the law (I'm sure temporarily):
“The Court finds that S.B. 8 creates a probable, irreparable, and imminent injury in the interim for which plaintiffs and their physicians, staff and patients throughout Texas have no adequate remedy at law if plaintiffs, their physicians, and staff are subjected to private enforcement lawsuits against them under S.B. 8,” Gamble wrote.
Who got this before a judge and how is not reported.
Yes, it is temporary pending a full hearing of the claim - what here is called an interlocutory injunction.
The Hill is reporting as breaking news that a Texas judge has halted the law (I'm sure temporarily):
“The Court finds that S.B. 8 creates a probable, irreparable, and imminent injury in the interim for which plaintiffs and their physicians, staff and patients throughout Texas have no adequate remedy at law if plaintiffs, their physicians, and staff are subjected to private enforcement lawsuits against them under S.B. 8,” Gamble wrote.
Who got this before a judge and how is not reported.
Yes, it is temporary pending a full hearing of the claim - what here is called an interlocutory injunction.
It’s called a temporary restraining (TRO) or a preliminary injunction (PI) in the US. A TRO is a short-term order, generally 10 days or a few weeks, pending a hearing on the PI motion. A PI generally stay in place pending a final ruling on the merits.
Someone who didn't get their law degree from watching Law & Order should give the real answer, but to me it's always appeared that the SCOTUS can do whatever it damn well wants to. They can always refuse to hear a case, which means the lower court's ruling stands.
Yeah, that’s pretty much right. Even in those cases where there is a right of appeal, which is a very limited number of cases, the Court has ways of avoiding hearing the case.
What the Court can’t do is reach down and take or intervene in a case that hasn’t been properly brought before it by one or more of the parties to the case.
Obviously the people of Texas support this kind of thing in a majority.
Obviously you couldn't be bothered to look at opinion polling in Texas.
The people elected the people who passed the law. You're saying that Texas isn't a representative democracy are you?
Are you saying that where you live, the legislature or parliament always does what a majority of citizens support? Always? If so, you’ve got the first legislature in a representative democracy I’ve ever encountered that consistently does that.
FWIW, a recent poll indicates that right at 55% of Texans believe that Texas’s abortion laws should not change or should be made less restrictive, while 32% believe they should be more restrictive. But 54% of Republican Texans believe the laws should be more restrictive, and that’s who the Republican legislators who make up the majority in the Texas legislature are going to listen to. On an issue like this, what they’re worried about it doing what their base wants, not what people outside their base want, because without the support of the base, they’re toast. Ditto the Republican Governor, who’s already two more conservative Republicans challenging him in the next election on the grounds that he’s not conservative enough.
[Hosting - no, please don't cut and paste things that are going around on Facebook - firstly it breaks copyright, secondly ' I saw this going around on Facebook' is not a source for reliable information on a sensitive subject - please don't do this. Louise Epiphanies Host]
Hey Texas -
I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had no brain and no lungs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is: I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
@NOprophet_NØprofit, since Nick Tamen looked up the opinion polling for you, you'll have time to look up gerrymandering.
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy. I'm pro-any woman who simply doesn't want to carry and bear a child.
Here's the text of the TRO. It looks like it doesn't actually suspend the law - it just prevents Texas Right to Life from suing Planned Parenthood under the new law through 9/17. There's a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for 9/13.
I wonder if Texas Right to Life can go back to the sympathetic 5th Circuit and get this TRO lifted?
Hosting
Because people seem to be missing my explanations when I hidden text things - can I just reiterate - please don't cut and paste stuff from Facebook. It breaks Commandment 7 on copyright and it's not the kind of source to draw information from on a sensitive subject.
Here's the text of the TRO. It looks like it doesn't actually suspend the law - it just prevents Texas Right to Life from suing Planned Parenthood under the new law through 9/17. There's a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for 9/13.
I wonder if Texas Right to Life can go back to the sympathetic 5th Circuit and get this TRO lifted?
No. They’re two separate court systems. Other than a potential appeal from the Texas Supreme Court to SCOTUS, which would have to be on federal law grounds, only a state appellate court can vacate a state trial court judge’s order.
Yes to Ruth's point - people who need abortions (which includes men and non-binary people, though of course TPTB don't regard them as such) shouldn't need to prove that their reasons are good enough. The Facebook example does not appear to be in favour of choices made just because the person doesn't want to be pregnant, which should be all the reason that's needed. Pregnancy and birth are very risky even nowadays and nobody should have to be pregnant or give birth without their consent.
@NOprophet_NØprofit, since Nick Tamen looked up the opinion polling for you, you'll have time to look up gerrymandering.
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy. I'm pro-any woman who simply doesn't want to carry and bear a child.
The gerrymandering thing leads to the USA being variously described as less rather less democratic and a democracy than other countries. Another term Plutocracy - rule by the rich - is discussed in some length as representing the true situation. Not very good.
@NOprophet_NØprofit, since Nick Tamen looked up the opinion polling for you, you'll have time to look up gerrymandering.
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy. I'm pro-any woman who simply doesn't want to carry and bear a child.
The gerrymandering thing leads to the USA being variously described as less rather less democratic and a democracy than other countries. Another term Plutocracy - rule by the rich - is discussed in some length as representing the true situation. Not very good.
It can be read into the record, though, that when Saskatchewan was taken to court in the 1990s for allowing densely populated urban constituencies the same parliamentary weight as sparsely populated rural constituencies(which is a different issue from partisan gerrymandering), the Supreme Court Of Canada said that one-man-one-vote is an American concept that has no application in Canada, and allowed the imbalance to continue.
(Ironically, this appeal to anti-Americanism worked mostly to the benefit of conservative parties, generally regarded as the most akin to nasty American right-wingers.)
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy.
This.
We are presented with a list of women who all have reasonable reasons for choosing to terminate their pregnancies. Assuming that you accept the position that there are reasonable reasons, it's absolutely not up to anyone else to judge how reasonable someone's reasons are.
You want to go through the list and say "well, I guess the kid that got raped is OK, but the horny teen that didn't use condoms right is going to have to raise a kid for the next 18 years"? It's absurd.
Here's the thing about abortions: they're really not anyone's first choice. Nobody* goes around saying "I don't like the feel of condoms, I don't want to take the pill - I'll just get abortions instead." If you want to reduce abortions, make it free and easy for people (especially young people) to access contraception, and educate them in its correct use. You know - the thing that the data actually says works.
*Given the number of people who apparently go around saying "I won't get vaccinated, but I'll take a regular dose of a dewormer instead", I'm less certain about this claim than I used to be. Perhaps there really are some people who are that stupid.
I wonder if someone could try to get to SCOTUS on the grounds it is unconstitutional to try to make law on the grounds of theology, as the constitution asserts that the USA is subject to secular government.
I doubt it. The 1st Amendment just says "Congress [and states via 14th Amendment] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It doesn't say people with strong convictions are forbidden from legislating just because those convictions have a religious source. Some people claim all their morality comes from God; they can't all be banned from the state legislature, can they?
Is it possible that the forced birthers are over- playing their hand? I mean that a lot of people don't want abortion abolished? How will this play out in future elections, especially if the Dems campaign hard on it?
I think a lot of people who oppose the right to an abortion really are against it - it's not just an electoral ploy. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of getting what you want solely on the grounds that it might energize your opponents.
@NOprophet_NØprofit, since Nick Tamen looked up the opinion polling for you, you'll have time to look up gerrymandering.
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy. I'm pro-any woman who simply doesn't want to carry and bear a child.
The gerrymandering thing leads to the USA being variously described as less rather less democratic and a democracy than other countries. Another term Plutocracy - rule by the rich - is discussed in some length as representing the true situation. Not very good.
It can be read into the record, though, that when Saskatchewan was taken to court in the 1990s for allowing densely populated urban constituencies the same parliamentary weight as sparsely populated rural constituencies(which is a different issue from partisan gerrymandering), the Supreme Court Of Canada said that one-man-one-vote is an American concept that has no application in Canada, and allowed the imbalance to continue.
(Ironically, this appeal to anti-Americanism worked mostly to the benefit of conservative parties, generally regarded as the most akin to nasty American right-wingers.)
They did however fix this. Which made no difference at all in election outcomes. My riding is now urban. So is the one we formerly lived in. It might make a difference in this one.
I think a lot of people who oppose the right to an abortion really are against it - it's not just an electoral ploy. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of getting what you want solely on the grounds that it might energize your opponents.
But I think there are also probably a number of anti-abortion people who would like the way the law sounds on paper, but won't think about its full implications until they've seen it enforced.
I know people I'd call "soft anti-abortion", who think eg. that doctors should be prosecuted for performing abortions, but the women who have abortions deserve compassion, because they've somehow been manipulated into killing their "babies" by the evil doctors, irresponsible boyfriends who don't wanna pay child support, whatever.
So they'd probably like the idea of doctors and tom-cats being sued into the poor house. Until they find out that their own son gave his girlfriend money to travel out of state for an abortion, and could thus now be taken to court under the law. At which point, things become a bit more complicated than the grandstanding politicians and megachurch pastors made them sound.
Is it possible that the forced birthers are over- playing their hand? I mean that a lot of people don't want abortion abolished? How will this play out in future elections, especially if the Dems campaign hard on it?
It is indeed possible, and much virtual ink has been spilled discussing that possibility. But I’d draw a distinction in that it’s probably not so much the True Believers that have overplayed their hands as it is the GOP, which is at their beck and call.
If this gambit works, the True Believers have gotten what they want, and everything else be damned. It’s only if it doesn’t work that they may have made it harder to get restrictions enacted in the future. Maybe.
And SCOTUS already has a case about Mississippi’s abortion ban after 15 weeks on its docket for the upcoming term, so the Court is already teed up to make a potentially pivotal decision about the future of Roe.
But the GOP may have given the Democrats a highly potent issue for the 2022 midterms, regardless of what happens to the Texas law. Time will tell.
I'd agree that to the extent Republican office-holders have been using abortion to get people to vote for them so they can do what they really want (cut taxes) this may be a bit too much of a good thing. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of honestly conservative people in the US, or simply assume that they're all hypocrites or just stupid people who haven't thought things through.
BTW, I don't think the son who helps his girlfriend get an abortion out of state faces liability. The law talks about liability for aiding or abetting "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" - i.e. an abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat in Texas. Abortions in other states aren't violations of Texas law, so there's no liability for aiding or abetting those.
I'd agree that to the extent Republican office-holders have been using abortion to get people to vote for them so they can do what they really want (cut taxes) this may be a bit too much of a good thing. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of honestly conservative people in the US, or simply assume that they're all hypocrites or just stupid people who haven't thought things through.
Agreed. And in my experience, those honestly conservative people have a variety of views on abortion and the extent to which it should be regulated, or whether it should be regulated at all. I’ve known quite a number of honestly conservative people who are pretty libertarian when it comes to abortion—meaning they believe that government should stay out of it.
BTW, I don't think the son who helps his girlfriend get an abortion out of state faces liability. The law talks about liability for aiding or abetting "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" - i.e. an abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat in Texas. Abortions in other states aren't violations of Texas law, so there's no liability for aiding or abetting those.
Hm. Some of the reporting I've seen on this law indicated that someone could be charged for helping to finance an out-of-state abortion. Perhaps the writers were making an unwarranted extrapolation from the text of the law?
I think a lot of people who oppose the right to an abortion really are against it - it's not just an electoral ploy. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of getting what you want solely on the grounds that it might energize your opponents.
But I think there are also probably a number of anti-abortion people who would like the way the law sounds on paper, but won't think about its full implications until they've seen it enforced.
I know people I'd call "soft anti-abortion", who think eg. that doctors should be prosecuted for performing abortions, but the women who have abortions deserve compassion, because they've somehow been manipulated into killing their "babies" by the evil doctors, irresponsible boyfriends who don't wanna pay child support, whatever.
So they'd probably like the idea of doctors and tom-cats being sued into the poor house. Until they find out that their own son gave his girlfriend money to travel out of state for an abortion, and could thus now be taken to court under the law. At which point, things become a bit more complicated than the grandstanding politicians and megachurch pastors made them sound.
Effectively those you describe are in favour of a Nordic Model of abortion. It certainly is striking that women who argue for the Nordic Model for sex work don't argue in favour of it for something that actually affects them. They both revolve around the idea that women cannot be allowed to govern themselves and make their own choices.
BTW, I don't think the son who helps his girlfriend get an abortion out of state faces liability. The law talks about liability for aiding or abetting "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" - i.e. an abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat in Texas. Abortions in other states aren't violations of Texas law, so there's no liability for aiding or abetting those.
Hm. Some of the reporting I've seen on this law indicated that someone could be charged for helping to finance an out-of-state abortion. Perhaps the writers were making an unwarranted extrapolation from the text of the law?
Maybe. Again, IANAL but I note that Planned Parenthood says the threat is to "anyone who helps someone get an abortion after six weeks in Texas— including doctors, partners, friends, family members, or abortion fund volunteers." So they seem to agree that it concerns abortions carried out in Texas.
I wonder if under this law liability could extend to out-of-state donors to organizations like PP (if PP were to carry out such an abortion)?
I'd agree that to the extent Republican office-holders have been using abortion to get people to vote for them so they can do what they really want (cut taxes) this may be a bit too much of a good thing. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are a lot of honestly conservative people in the US, or simply assume that they're all hypocrites or just stupid people who haven't thought things through.
BTW, I don't think the son who helps his girlfriend get an abortion out of state faces liability. The law talks about liability for aiding or abetting "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" - i.e. an abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat in Texas. Abortions in other states aren't violations of Texas law, so there's no liability for aiding or abetting those.
I don't think one has to drag hypocrisy in to it. A lot of people admit to being one-issue voters: they vote GOP because they are opposed to abortion, period. Once that reason for voting "red" is taken away, what is left? Why, now, should they vote against their economic interests? They've already won on abortion; the GOP had only one carrot and it's gone.
Republicans won't win any new voters with this thing -- if you like it, you were already voting Republican -- but in some places it could still be a good thing for turning out the vote. Democrats could pick up some moderate votes, plus use the issue for turning out the vote. The party holding the White House typically loses seats in Congress in the midterm elections, but with the Texas law and the possibility that the Supreme Court will outright overturn Roe in the Mississippi case they'll hear in the upcoming term, the Democrats could turn that around in 2022. They have never made the courts the big issue that Republicans have; that could now change.
I don't think the one-issue anti-abortion voters no longer have a reason to vote Republican; in fact, I think there's an argument to be made that they'll double down in some parts of the country, like for interest South Dakota, where the governor wants to copy the Texas law. But that's South Dakota -- Republicans generally compete with each other there, not with Democrats. In other places this thing is going to be a problem for Republican campaigns -- in the gubornatorial recall election in California, for instance, where the leading Republican candidate was making some headway, but now has to duck questions about the Texas law, while the Democrat trying to keep his job is happy to tell anyone who'll listen how dangerous it is to vote Republican. The same thing is happening in the Virginia governor's race and the down-ballot races. In Pennsylvania, though, while a Democratic running for governor is denouncing the Texas law, at least one Republican candidate is saying he'd sign a similar bill.
In addition to looking at how this plays out differently in different parts of the country, it's important to look at how this breaks down by gender -- Republicans have been worried about hanging onto suburban white women, and this is only going to make things worse. And that's a part of the electorate they can't very easily suppress.
I think a lot of people who oppose the right to an abortion really are against it - it's not just an electoral ploy. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of getting what you want solely on the grounds that it might energize your opponents.
But I think there are also probably a number of anti-abortion people who would like the way the law sounds on paper, but won't think about its full implications until they've seen it enforced.
I know people I'd call "soft anti-abortion", who think eg. that doctors should be prosecuted for performing abortions, but the women who have abortions deserve compassion, because they've somehow been manipulated into killing their "babies" by the evil doctors, irresponsible boyfriends who don't wanna pay child support, whatever.
So they'd probably like the idea of doctors and tom-cats being sued into the poor house. Until they find out that their own son gave his girlfriend money to travel out of state for an abortion, and could thus now be taken to court under the law. At which point, things become a bit more complicated than the grandstanding politicians and megachurch pastors made them sound.
Effectively those you describe are in favour of a Nordic Model of abortion. It certainly is striking that women who argue for the Nordic Model for sex work don't argue in favour of it for something that actually affects them. They both revolve around the idea that women cannot be allowed to govern themselves and make their own choices.
Yes. These people I'm thinking of would believe, in most cases, that both female sex workers and women who have abortions are being manipulated into their decisions.
I don't think the one-issue anti-abortion voters no longer have a reason to vote Republican; in fact, I think there's an argument to be made that they'll double down in some parts of the country, like for interest South Dakota, where the governor wants to copy the Texas law.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There's nothing holding one-issue abortion voters to the GOP in Texas.
I suspect opposition to abortion isn’t the only cultural value they share with the GOP, and I doubt they’d reward success on their most cherished goal with sudden abandonment.
I suspect opposition to abortion isn’t the only cultural value they share with the GOP, and I doubt they’d reward success on their most cherished goal with sudden abandonment.
Besides which, the rhetoric will immediately switch from banning to keeping the ban.
I suspect opposition to abortion isn’t the only cultural value they share with the GOP, and I doubt they’d reward success on their most cherished goal with sudden abandonment.
Besides which, the rhetoric will immediately switch from banning to keeping the ban.
Probably. And Roe v. Wade was supposed to have grounded the right to an abortion in a constitutional right to privacy; if abortion bans don't have that status, they'll be susceptible to reversal by a change in which party controls the state legislature, and pro-life forces could start emphasizing the need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate abortion nationally. That could be an issue to run on (and fundraise with) for years and years.
I suspect opposition to abortion isn’t the only cultural value they share with the GOP, and I doubt they’d reward success on their most cherished goal with sudden abandonment.
Besides which, the rhetoric will immediately switch from banning to keeping the ban.
Probably. And Roe v. Wade was supposed to have grounded the right to an abortion in a constitutional right to privacy; if abortion bans don't have that status, they'll be susceptible to reversal by a change in which party controls the state legislature, and pro-life forces could start emphasizing the need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate abortion nationally. That could be an issue to run on (and fundraise with) for years and years.
Not least because there isn't a chance of such an amendment passing, which makes it perfect for a perpetual culture war.
It could be like the Federal Marriage Amendment which was last re-introduced in the Senate in 2015. Obergefell (the Supreme Court ruling protecting same-sex marriage) seems a lot more secure than Roe, though.
It could be like the Federal Marriage Amendment which was last re-introduced in the Senate in 2015. Obergefell (the Supreme Court ruling protecting same-sex marriage) seems a lot more secure than Roe, though.
I get the impression that any court ruling is only as secure as any limits on Republican justices' willingness to twist constitution, statute and precedent like a pretzel.
I mean secure in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a lot of serious effort among politicians or the public to overturn it. Gallup reports that same-sex marriage is supported by 70% of the public, a vast increase over the 26% of 1996. It's even a majority position (55%) among Republicans. I doubt there's any appetite on the court to revisit this issue.
I mean secure in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a lot of serious effort among politicians or the public to overturn it. Gallup reports that same-sex marriage is supported by 70% of the public, a vast increase over the 26% of 1996. It's even a majority position (55%) among Republicans. I doubt there's any appetite on the court to revisit this issue.
Ah, gotcha. I thought you were assessing the strength of the legal foundations of the decision. I would note, though, that polling on reproductive rights also shows strong support.
I agree that the legal foundations of a decision are only as strong as the Court's current justices want them to be.
I don't think the pro-choice side is that strongly supported - certainly not at the 70% level. Recent polling from Gallup puts "legal under any" and "legal under most" circumstances at a combined 45%, while "legal only in a few" and "illegal in all" are at 52%. Self-identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is pretty evenly split at 49-47 (though this can be affected by the order of other questions asked.)
Republicans are just as likely as anyone else to have kids who are gay, and most people are sold on the idea that being gay is not a choice. Getting an abortion is very much a choice, so it plays out differently.
(Ironically, this appeal to anti-Americanism worked mostly to the benefit of conservative parties, generally regarded as the most akin to nasty American right-wingers.)
Canadian footnote for @stetson@NOprophet_NØprofit I understand the point that you're making, but that has not always been the case historically. The Conservative Party had a much stronger suspicion of things American, and anything with a whiff of republicanism that did the Liberals. It was, after all, Wilfred Laurier's and the Liberals' support for a reciprocity treaty with the US that lost them the election of 1911. Reciprocity fractured the Liberal base, and the Conservatives campaigned successfully on Canadian opposition to reciprocity and fear of coming too closely into the American orbit. The roles were reversed under Mulroney, though this was a reversal underway before Mulroney took the helm.
Comments
The law specifies that this is a civil suit, so the level of evidence required is consistent with that. "Preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And yes, there does seem to be some trolling involved.
What would force SCOTUS to intervene?
Of course, ta.
Someone who didn't get their law degree from watching Law & Order should give the real answer, but to me it's always appeared that the SCOTUS can do whatever it damn well wants to. They can always refuse to hear a case, which means the lower court's ruling stands.
The Hill is reporting as breaking news that a Texas judge has halted the law (I'm sure temporarily):
Who got this before a judge and how is not reported.
The people elected the people who passed the law. You're saying that Texas isn't a representative democracy are you?
Yes, it is temporary pending a full hearing of the claim - what here is called an interlocutory injunction.
The judge in Texas has entered a TRO.
Yeah, that’s pretty much right. Even in those cases where there is a right of appeal, which is a very limited number of cases, the Court has ways of avoiding hearing the case.
What the Court can’t do is reach down and take or intervene in a case that hasn’t been properly brought before it by one or more of the parties to the case.
Are you saying that where you live, the legislature or parliament always does what a majority of citizens support? Always? If so, you’ve got the first legislature in a representative democracy I’ve ever encountered that consistently does that.
FWIW, a recent poll indicates that right at 55% of Texans believe that Texas’s abortion laws should not change or should be made less restrictive, while 32% believe they should be more restrictive. But 54% of Republican Texans believe the laws should be more restrictive, and that’s who the Republican legislators who make up the majority in the Texas legislature are going to listen to. On an issue like this, what they’re worried about it doing what their base wants, not what people outside their base want, because without the support of the base, they’re toast. Ditto the Republican Governor, who’s already two more conservative Republicans challenging him in the next election on the grounds that he’s not conservative enough.
This law just makes me so angry I could spit.
[Hosting - no, please don't cut and paste things that are going around on Facebook - firstly it breaks copyright, secondly ' I saw this going around on Facebook' is not a source for reliable information on a sensitive subject - please don't do this. Louise Epiphanies Host]
I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had no brain and no lungs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is: I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
And as for that Facebook thing: I'm sick of women having to parade their trauma and pain to gain sympathy. I'm pro-any woman who simply doesn't want to carry and bear a child.
I wonder if Texas Right to Life can go back to the sympathetic 5th Circuit and get this TRO lifted?
Because people seem to be missing my explanations when I hidden text things - can I just reiterate - please don't cut and paste stuff from Facebook. It breaks Commandment 7 on copyright and it's not the kind of source to draw information from on a sensitive subject.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
Who in their right mind thinks it is?
The gerrymandering thing leads to the USA being variously described as less rather less democratic and a democracy than other countries. Another term Plutocracy - rule by the rich - is discussed in some length as representing the true situation. Not very good.
It can be read into the record, though, that when Saskatchewan was taken to court in the 1990s for allowing densely populated urban constituencies the same parliamentary weight as sparsely populated rural constituencies(which is a different issue from partisan gerrymandering), the Supreme Court Of Canada said that one-man-one-vote is an American concept that has no application in Canada, and allowed the imbalance to continue.
(Ironically, this appeal to anti-Americanism worked mostly to the benefit of conservative parties, generally regarded as the most akin to nasty American right-wingers.)
This.
We are presented with a list of women who all have reasonable reasons for choosing to terminate their pregnancies. Assuming that you accept the position that there are reasonable reasons, it's absolutely not up to anyone else to judge how reasonable someone's reasons are.
You want to go through the list and say "well, I guess the kid that got raped is OK, but the horny teen that didn't use condoms right is going to have to raise a kid for the next 18 years"? It's absurd.
Here's the thing about abortions: they're really not anyone's first choice. Nobody* goes around saying "I don't like the feel of condoms, I don't want to take the pill - I'll just get abortions instead." If you want to reduce abortions, make it free and easy for people (especially young people) to access contraception, and educate them in its correct use. You know - the thing that the data actually says works.
*Given the number of people who apparently go around saying "I won't get vaccinated, but I'll take a regular dose of a dewormer instead", I'm less certain about this claim than I used to be. Perhaps there really are some people who are that stupid.
They did however fix this. Which made no difference at all in election outcomes. My riding is now urban. So is the one we formerly lived in. It might make a difference in this one.
But I think there are also probably a number of anti-abortion people who would like the way the law sounds on paper, but won't think about its full implications until they've seen it enforced.
I know people I'd call "soft anti-abortion", who think eg. that doctors should be prosecuted for performing abortions, but the women who have abortions deserve compassion, because they've somehow been manipulated into killing their "babies" by the evil doctors, irresponsible boyfriends who don't wanna pay child support, whatever.
So they'd probably like the idea of doctors and tom-cats being sued into the poor house. Until they find out that their own son gave his girlfriend money to travel out of state for an abortion, and could thus now be taken to court under the law. At which point, things become a bit more complicated than the grandstanding politicians and megachurch pastors made them sound.
If this gambit works, the True Believers have gotten what they want, and everything else be damned. It’s only if it doesn’t work that they may have made it harder to get restrictions enacted in the future. Maybe.
And SCOTUS already has a case about Mississippi’s abortion ban after 15 weeks on its docket for the upcoming term, so the Court is already teed up to make a potentially pivotal decision about the future of Roe.
But the GOP may have given the Democrats a highly potent issue for the 2022 midterms, regardless of what happens to the Texas law. Time will tell.
BTW, I don't think the son who helps his girlfriend get an abortion out of state faces liability. The law talks about liability for aiding or abetting "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" - i.e. an abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat in Texas. Abortions in other states aren't violations of Texas law, so there's no liability for aiding or abetting those.
Hm. Some of the reporting I've seen on this law indicated that someone could be charged for helping to finance an out-of-state abortion. Perhaps the writers were making an unwarranted extrapolation from the text of the law?
Effectively those you describe are in favour of a Nordic Model of abortion. It certainly is striking that women who argue for the Nordic Model for sex work don't argue in favour of it for something that actually affects them. They both revolve around the idea that women cannot be allowed to govern themselves and make their own choices.
I wonder if under this law liability could extend to out-of-state donors to organizations like PP (if PP were to carry out such an abortion)?
I don't think one has to drag hypocrisy in to it. A lot of people admit to being one-issue voters: they vote GOP because they are opposed to abortion, period. Once that reason for voting "red" is taken away, what is left? Why, now, should they vote against their economic interests? They've already won on abortion; the GOP had only one carrot and it's gone.
I don't think the one-issue anti-abortion voters no longer have a reason to vote Republican; in fact, I think there's an argument to be made that they'll double down in some parts of the country, like for interest South Dakota, where the governor wants to copy the Texas law. But that's South Dakota -- Republicans generally compete with each other there, not with Democrats. In other places this thing is going to be a problem for Republican campaigns -- in the gubornatorial recall election in California, for instance, where the leading Republican candidate was making some headway, but now has to duck questions about the Texas law, while the Democrat trying to keep his job is happy to tell anyone who'll listen how dangerous it is to vote Republican. The same thing is happening in the Virginia governor's race and the down-ballot races. In Pennsylvania, though, while a Democratic running for governor is denouncing the Texas law, at least one Republican candidate is saying he'd sign a similar bill.
In addition to looking at how this plays out differently in different parts of the country, it's important to look at how this breaks down by gender -- Republicans have been worried about hanging onto suburban white women, and this is only going to make things worse. And that's a part of the electorate they can't very easily suppress.
Yes. These people I'm thinking of would believe, in most cases, that both female sex workers and women who have abortions are being manipulated into their decisions.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There's nothing holding one-issue abortion voters to the GOP in Texas.
Besides which, the rhetoric will immediately switch from banning to keeping the ban.
Not least because there isn't a chance of such an amendment passing, which makes it perfect for a perpetual culture war.
I get the impression that any court ruling is only as secure as any limits on Republican justices' willingness to twist constitution, statute and precedent like a pretzel.
Ah, gotcha. I thought you were assessing the strength of the legal foundations of the decision. I would note, though, that polling on reproductive rights also shows strong support.
I don't think the pro-choice side is that strongly supported - certainly not at the 70% level. Recent polling from Gallup puts "legal under any" and "legal under most" circumstances at a combined 45%, while "legal only in a few" and "illegal in all" are at 52%. Self-identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is pretty evenly split at 49-47 (though this can be affected by the order of other questions asked.)
Canadian footnote for @stetson @NOprophet_NØprofit I understand the point that you're making, but that has not always been the case historically. The Conservative Party had a much stronger suspicion of things American, and anything with a whiff of republicanism that did the Liberals. It was, after all, Wilfred Laurier's and the Liberals' support for a reciprocity treaty with the US that lost them the election of 1911. Reciprocity fractured the Liberal base, and the Conservatives campaigned successfully on Canadian opposition to reciprocity and fear of coming too closely into the American orbit. The roles were reversed under Mulroney, though this was a reversal underway before Mulroney took the helm.
We resume our scheduled program.