Abortion

The Sweeping Texas Abortion Ban That Took Effect Today Is Plainly Inconsistent With SCOTUS Precedents

Because the Supreme Court so far has not intervened, post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.

|

Because the Supreme Court has not intervened yet, a Texas law that purports to ban the vast majority of abortions in that state took effect today. S.B. 8, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law on May 19, requires physicians to check for cardiac activity with a sonogram prior to an abortion, and it says "a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion" if he detects "a fetal heartbeat." In an effort to frustrate constitutional challenges, the law bars state or local officials from enforcing the ban, instead authorizing "any person" to sue physicians who perform post-heartbeat abortions, along with anyone who "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets" such procedures.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman nevertheless declined to dismiss a July 13 lawsuit challenging S.B. 8. In that case, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, abortion providers and abortion rights advocates sued a Smith County judge, the clerk of that court, state medical regulators, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Mark Lee Dickson, a pro-life activist who "has expressed his intent to bring civil enforcement actions as a private citizen under S.B. 8." The plaintiffs argued that the defendants would all play a role in enforcing the statute, either by bringing the lawsuits it authorizes, adjudicating them, taking administrative action against medical professionals accused of violating S.B. 8, or pursuing civil penalties under the Texas Medical Practice Act triggered by the new abortion restrictions.

Pitman agreed with that logic, and he scheduled a hearing for August 30 to consider a preliminary injunction. On Friday, after the defendants appealed Pitman's decision, he vacated that hearing with respect to the state defendants, who claim sovereign immunity, but not with respect to Dickson, a private citizen. That same day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit imposed a "temporary administrative stay" on the district court proceedings, and on Sunday it rejected the plaintiffs' motion to lift that stay, along with their motion for an emergency injunction.

The next day, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene by issuing an emergency injunction or by lifting the 5th Circuit's stay. Because the Court has not responded yet, there was nothing to stop S.B. 8 from taking effect today.

The law's reach is so broad that it clearly violates the Court's abortion precedents. According to the Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the government may not impose an "undue burden" on the right to abortion, which happens when its regulations have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." A fetal heartbeat can be detected beginning around six weeks into a pregnancy, long before "viability," before most abortions are performed, and before many women even realize they are pregnant. The plaintiffs estimated that S.B. 8 would affect "at least 85% of Texas abortion patients."

The law makes an exception for "a medical emergency" but not for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Nor does it allow post-heartbeat abortions when the fetus has a "defect incompatible with life after birth," Pitman noted. In those respects, S.B. 8 is even stricter than some state "trigger" laws—abortion bans that are designed to take effect should the Supreme Court decide that the Constitution does not protect a right to terminate a pregnancy after all. Utah's trigger law, for example, includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, or a fetus with a "uniformly diagnosable" and "uniformly lethal" defect or a "severe brain abnormality" resulting in a "mentally vegetative state."

S.B. 8 also creates a very disadvantageous situation for defendants in the lawsuits it authorizes. "While empowering private enforcers," Pitman noted in his decision allowing the case to proceed, "S.B. 8 limits the defenses available to defendants and subjects them to a fee-shifting regime skewed in favor of claimants."

While the law says women who seek or obtain abortions cannot be sued, potential defendants include a wide range of ancillary actors in addition to people directly involved in the procedure. The law makes it easy to sue people and burdensome to defend against such claims, threatening defendants with "statutory damages" of at least $10,000 per abortion as well as legal fees they probably will never recover even if they win.

S.B. 8 says someone can be sued not only if he performs or assists an abortion but also if he "intends" to do so. It does not define "aiding or abetting" a prohibited abortion, except to say that it includes "paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." But on its face, that provision would cover anyone who assisted a woman seeking an abortion, whether by helping to pay for the procedure, taking her to the clinic, or watching her kids while she was there. One exception: The law does not apply to "speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment," so merely advising a woman to seek an abortion presumably would not be actionable.

The law says someone can be sued under the "aiding and abetting" provision "regardless of whether the person knew or should have known" that the abortion was illegal. At trial, an alleged accomplice can raise an "affirmative defense" that he "reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation," that the abortion was legal, which he has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

What does not count as an affirmative defense? Defendants cannot argue that they did not know about the law or did not understand it. They cannot cite their belief that the law is unconstitutional. They cannot rely on any court ruling to that effect if it was subsequently overturned, even if that did not happen until after the conduct for which they were sued. They cannot rely on state or federal court decisions that are "not binding" in the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed. They cannot "assert the rights of women seeking an abortion" unless that is consistent with "the tests for third-party standing" established by the U.S. Supreme Court or the Court "holds that the courts of this state must confer standing."

Even defendants who ultimately prevail will suffer a financial penalty, since they will have to cover the cost of their defense. "Notwithstanding any other law," S.B. 8 says, "a court may not award costs or attorney's fees…to a defendant in an action brought under this section." By contrast, plaintiffs who win can expect to receive not just $10,000 in "statutory damages" but also compensation for their "costs and attorney's fees," which S.B. 8 says "the court shall award."

As Pitman notes, this "novel fee-shifting regime" extends beyond lawsuits brought under S.B. 8. It also covers "any challenges to the law, including in the instant case," as well as challenges to any Texas law that "regulates or restricts abortion." In those cases, the rule likewise disfavors people who object to the law. Under S.B. 8, Pitman says, plaintiffs who challenge abortion laws "may be liable for attorney's fees unless they prevail on all of their initial claims, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the litigation."

In their application to the Supreme Court, the organizations challenging S.B. 8 warned that it would "immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas," even if enforcement is officially limited to private civil actions. "At bottom," they say, "the question in this case is whether—by outsourcing to private individuals the authority to enforce an unconstitutional prohibition—Texas can adopt a law that allows it to 'do precisely that which the [Constitution] forbids.'"

So far S.B. 8 is working as intended: Facing potentially ruinous liability, abortion clinics in Texas have dramatically curtailed their services. Whole Woman's Health, the lead plaintiff challenging the law, says it is now offering abortions at its clinics in McAllen, McKinney, Austin, and Fort Worth only "if no embryonic or fetal cardiac activity is detected in the sonogram." The American Civil Liberties Union lamented that "access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people," saying "the impact will be immediate and devastating."

All of this is welcome news, of course, for Americans who view abortion as tantamount to murder. But that is not the view that the Supreme Court has taken for half a century. In Roe v. Wade, it held that the Constitution protects a right to abortion, and it has repeatedly affirmed that basic conclusion since 1973. A case that the Court will hear next term, involving a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks (vs. about six weeks under S.B. 8), will give the justices an opportunity to overturn or (more likely) scale back Roe and its progeny. But in the meantime, S.B. 8 is plainly inconsistent with what the Court has said about constitutional limits on abortion regulations.

NEXT: Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 12 Years

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is Sullum suggesting the new Texas abortion law is a miscarriage of justice?

    1. It’ll be strangled in the crib by federal authorities.

      1. It’ll be stillborn.

        1. It’s partially birthed, but will nevertheless be aborted when SCOTUS uses a suction to suck its brains out.

          1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…Ghy And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

            Try it, you won’t regret it!…….. VISIT HERE

            1. “uses a suction to suck its brains out.”

              “Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this”

              Hahaha, oh you crazy spambots.

              1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.FGc Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                You can check it out here……….. VISIT HERE

            2. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19,632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.BCd simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

              Try now………………. VISIT HERE

    2. Yes and it is.

      1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.VDnb You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…Lifetime Opportunity

        This is what I do……………… VISIT HERE

    3. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.VDs You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…Lifetime Opportunity

      This is what I do……………… VISIT HERE

    4. Oh that was good. Tip of the hat to you.

  2. This will last about ten minutes before a federal judge overrules it.

    1. It’ll take one case, so yeah, about ten minutes.

    2. gosh I hope not…its time the States stood up to the Federal Govt when they act outside the bounds of the Constitution..hell shut down the Federal Reserve tomorrow…it would be a great start for liberty

      1. 14th Amendment — nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

        1. Still missing the “right to have an abortion” part….

  3. >>post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.

    bueno.

    >>But that is not the view that the Supreme Court has taken for half a century.

    ya well fuck those guys for their complicity in 50 million deaths. Souter especially.

    1. Even under roe the standard was a viable fetus, which at the time was third trimester. Since then doctors have saved fetuses under 20 weeks. So viability has decreased in gestation as medical science improves.

      1. yes your last sentence shows how their viable fetus test was always wrong

      2. Other than in pregnancy, lack of viability off of life support is never a legal standard to choose death, particularly when there’s a high certainty that non-viability is a short term condition. Future viability of the average fetus is drastically higher than those put on a ventilator for Covid, yet if you walk in and pull that plug, you’ll do hard time, even if the current state of their existence is terribly inconvenient and financially ruinous.

        1. I agree. Viability is a terrible standard. Then again barring a constitutional change the argument should be at the legislative branch and not the judicial.

          1. “…barring a constitutional change the argument should be at the legislative branch and not the judicial.”

            SCOTUS has disagreed with you from Roe until now,

          2. Yes, and to accomplish that, the Supreme Court or Congress must overrule Roe and its progeny. Then the people of each state can hash it out and enact their own laws on the issue without federal interference one way or the other. That’s the Tenth Amendment in operation. It’s also more practical and wise than trying to keep forcing one view on 360 million people of different backgrounds and philosophies and religions.

            1. Good point. The problem here is the scouts created a constitutional right we’re none existed. Just completely made it up. We’ve been struggling without this mistake ever since. We should stop nibbling at the edges and just strike roe down. Then just let each state decide for itself.

        2. Never-mind pulling the plug on a separate individual is different than removing something from one’s own body.

          1. Slept through biology class, did you? The genetically human distinct individual inside the mother’s body is not part of her body. And it’s gross willful scientific ignorance to keep using that phrase.

            We can still argue about when that distinct human individual should be accorded legal protection and no longer killed at the behest of his/her mother. But it’s a matter of medical fact, not opinion, that there are two genetically and physically distinct individuals.

            As a separate issue, one of those individuals voluntarily helped to bring the other, innocent one into being in a helpless dependent state. What’s the right and just way to proceed?

            1. lmao… “physically distinct individuals”??? Someone failed their physics class. If what you’ve had learned were actually TRUE as you state it then there would be ZERO problems with removing the individual and handing them to the State for adoption.

              But you’re glossing over that FACT. And are instead trying to pigeon-hole the woman into “involuntary servitude” to that other individual (as you insist but cannot sustain) upon the basis of being innocent. Does that mean all innocent citizens gets to enslave Women or just the pregnant ones?

              1. You’re an idiot who doesn’t seem to understand simple things like responsibility, accountability, etc, etc, etc.

                & yes, a baby, whether in the womb at 9 months or already born is a distinct individual with traits passed down by both mother father. The mother’s left arm and other body parts are hers and hers alone, but a baby is not a body part, because it is distinct from the host.

                Idiot.

      3. “Since then doctors have saved fetuses under 20 weeks. So viability has decreased in gestation as medical science improves.”

        Then I’d say let the State ‘save’ the fetus if they so wish. That would be the State’s decision just as it should be the woman’s.

        1. Because the state unprotected had sex with the innocent, unknowingly duped female.

          Idiot.

    2. Libertarians For Statist Womb Management are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      Well, those assholes and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

      Carry on, clingers. Your betters — the liberal-libertarian mainstream — will let you know how long and how far.

      1. >>Libertarians For Statist Womb Management

        I am me and no more. and ya murder is murder sorry.

      2. “those assholes and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics”

        But Kirkland is all for Big-Corporation trading in Babyparts Clinics.

    3. Then you are also complicit in millions of deaths for the last time you ejaculated into a sock. If a zygote is a person, then a sperm is a half-person. You are a mass murderer, Dillinger.

      1. The middle-school sophistry of Chipper’s argument doesn’t really warrant a response. It’s kind of a waste of time to argue with a guy who thinks the birth canal fairy magically imbues humanity to those who pass through her sacred halls, but I’m bored.

        1. a zygote left alone in the womb will almost always live to be a senior citizen. A sperm left alone in your nutsack never will. The fact that you think that the difference between a complete genome and a partial one is rhetorical, means that your biology education largely consists of “I fucking Love Science” memes you saw on Facebook.

        2. a zygote doesn’t have a heartbeat and isn’t part of the Texas ban. All the people being protected from you guys have spinal cords, a brain, a nervous system, organs, bones and blood.
        So don’t fret. You can still kill as many zygotes as you want.

        1. “a zygote left alone in the womb will almost always live to be a senior citizen”

          Sure, if by “almost always” you actually mean less than half the time. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm A majority of American women are fillicidal, according to the 38% of American wingnuts who say life begins at conception.

          You know what also has “spinal cords, a brain, a nervous system, organs, bones and blood”? Every single one of the 130 million mammals on the planet. I’m sure you get really choked up when you sit down for a juicy porterhouse, crisscrossed by nerve fibers, oozing blood, and with a chunk of bone in the middle. Right? Or is there perhaps something else that makes a human what it is, that doesn’t exist at 6 weeks. Hmmm…

  4. So plainly the USSC denied an injunction. Good work stroodle.

    Also Casey does allow forms of restrictions. I mean you even quote the key word “nonviable fetus.”

    I dont necessarily agree. But regulations are allowed under current precedent. This is why Roe and Casey need to be thrown away and the case decided clearly. Difficulty. A badly formed idea of rigjt to privacy allowing the killing of a unique human with unique DNA more than likely falls under legislative duties and not judicial duties. Or changes to the constitution.

    It is weird how often Reason supports federal decision making over states and legislative bodies.

    1. “It is weird how often Reason supports federal decision making over states and legislative bodies.”

      Sullum is a habitual offender on this regard. Even on the rare occasion that he recognizes that there is no Federal authority and it is undeniably a states rights issue, he is miserable over it and points out all the faults with not having central control.

      He also regularly asserts that because a thing is deemed constitutional in a narrow or limited sense, that makes it constitutional in any sense. He’s literally a walking, talking logical fallacy who really only appeals to those who are as ignorant of the topic as he is.

      1. Well, his Lord of Strazele alter ego showcases that to a tee.

      2. Says the guy who appeals to his state legislative body to enforce laws that constrain individual rights of millions, while those a hundred feet away over a state line enjoy rights he’d deny to his compatriots.

        I believe you were talking about someone who was a walking logical fallacy, right? Do go on.

        1. At least attempt to comprehend–

          state legislative body

          It is weird how often Reason supports federal decision making over</b? states and legislative bodies.

          1. It all started at the 14th Amendment when slavery ended.
            I consider the ending of slavery a good thing.

            1. And yet you support the murder of people you’ve forced to be wholly dependent on you.

              Like all leftists, you adore the idea of slavery—as long as it’s to the State.

              1. What you state, “you people support murdering (what?), adore the idea of slavery as long as it’s to the State”

                … but …

                “I support the State forcing Women to carry their Pregnancy to term.”

                You argument holds a whole heck of a lot of projection in it.

                1. Margert Sanger would be proud of all the poor people not being born. I guess you are proud as well.

        2. Says the guy who appeals to his state legislative body to enforce laws that constrain individual rights of millions, while those a hundred feet away over a state line enjoy rights he’d deny to his compatriots.

          Are you talking about cigarette taxes in New York? Or maybe emission requirements in CA? Maybe it’s gun control laws in NY, IL (Chicago), etc, etc, etc…?

  5. I’d have a lot more respect for “my body, my choice” if they applied that same slogan to vaccination, drugs, and all other government meddling; and Cuomo, Biden, Bill Clinton, and every other touchy-feeling Democratic politician.

    1. Another faux libertarian who races toward authoritarianism when it flatters his misogyny, racism, gay-bashing, or xenophobia.

      Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit.

    2. Pregnancy does not spread through the mere act of breathing in common spaces.

      1. Neither so drugs or big gulps, but that doesn’t stop statist from denying I have bodily autonomy.

        Oh, and I have no moral obligation to protect you from nature.

  6. I’ve no doubt this will get struck down, but the hyperventilating about it creating a “handmaid’s tale” is ridiculous.

    1. The funny thing is, the Handmaid’s Tale is being created otherwise. Women can’t discriminate against women with penises, up to and including refusing them entry to the bathroom, *except* when a woman with a penis tells them to conceive/abort.

    2. I’m actually on the “don’t make it completely illegal” side, thanks to many conversations here, but the screeching over it, and the left’s abject hatred of Republicans, is nauseating.

      1. Yes, I have to say the pro-choice side has done everything in their power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory since the earliest I can remember. All they had to do was convince people that it was the least of a choice of evils and that everything else was worse. They actually succeeded in convincing the majority of people. There was still strong opposition, but it was getting more and more marginalized over the years.

        However, around 2000, they began to push further: declaring that opposition wasn’t just wrong, but actively evil, declaring that abortion should be allowed further and further, that the state should pay for it, and that minors should not be required to get parental consent. Some activists even claimed they wished they had been able to get abortions.

        The middle ground was pushed away to the simple argument of the pro-life side.

      2. CNN is losing their shit and acting like Texas just started transporting women to death camps.

        1. It enslaved its women to serve as incubators. No, it did not leave them a choice – 6 weeks is before many women realize they are pregnant.

          1. You mean they can’t get out of state even with a vaccine passport and help from the pro-fetus-killing lobby?

            Who knew?

            1. They can leave and I hope they will. Permanently. And not just the women who wish to abort, but every single person who values their liberty. The only ones I feel sorry for are the bigots´children. Hopefully they will once leave as well and let their misguided mothers with zero self respect suffer in a hellhole of their own making.

          2. I can’t believe the state is going around impregnating women.

  7. This law has all the appearance of some kind of communist society where neighbors snitched on neighbors. How abhorrent.

    A follow up question though- if they determine that the fetus is viable at 6 weeks then what is to stop a doctor from just inducing birth and trying to deliver it? If it’s so viable then it seems apt to allow it to survive on its own outside the would-be mother yes? Abortion by another name but completely legal?

    1. Knowing it won’t survive the procedure you are doing [inducing birth on a non-viable fetus] isn’t abortion in the same way as claiming “the guy failed to dodge my bullet” isn’t murder.

      1. A bullet fired by one’s own-self? Be considered more of a suicide than a murder.

    2. Are we talking about abortions or vaccinations here?

    3. Interesting logic. Guess we should kill invalids and infants since they can’t survive on their own either.

      1. It is not necessary to enslave a specific person and force this person to suffer pain in order to keep them alive.

        1. It is not necessary to enslave a specific person and force this person to suffer pain in order to keep them alive.

          So, what you’re saying is that when a person forces someone to be at their mercy by doing something that creates such a situation, they should be allowed to kill the person that they’ve forced to be at their mercy if that person is deemed inconvenient?

          1. That works better the other way around —

            So, what you’re saying is that when the government forces a pregnant woman to be at their mercy and deliver every pregnancy and the woman decides not to they should be charged with murder and possibly death row? Because it’s inconvenient for the government to loose control?

            1. That works better the other way around

              No, it doesn’t.

              The government doesn’t force women to become pregnant.

              IF a woman becomes pregnant and does not wish to be, she has 6 weeks in which to take care of the issue in Texas.

              If, during that time, she does NOT take care of it, she does NOT have the option of killing the fetus.

              Should she proceed after this she should be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

              Because that it what she’d be doing.

              You still get a window if you don’t want to be pregnant, just one that requires you to take more responsibility for your actions.

              1. Personally; I agree with this argument. But for this specific law in-particular undercutting ‘viability’ is the murder of something that has ZERO chance of survival without “involuntary servitude”.

                That can either be looked at as a ‘mercy’ killing or accepting legislative slavery again. And as I’ve said it before; In this situation the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze.

                The USA foundation has more respect for property (house/home) rights than that; a persons body isn’t ‘less’ sacred than their home. It’s a conflict between a full-person and a sub-person and in that respect (being not really anyone else’s business) should be left to the parties at stake (i.e. FAMILY MATTER). The [WE] mob really has ZERO business stuffing their fat noses where it really doesn’t belong.

      2. Do you think it’s justice to serve time because you didn’t take care of your neighbors neglected kids?

    4. The private prosecution seems to be a clear attempt to avoid effective nullification of the law by certain legal departments. I can understand their purpose, but it makes me uneasy that the government is making laws knowing and expecting their own to fight against it.

      1. “…it makes me uneasy that the government is making laws knowing and expecting their own to fight against it.”

        What does this even mean?

        1. I’m guessing the way State’s are challenging Federal Authority.

          1. Try expressing as a complete thought a suggested replacement for the quoted sentence. So far your answer is mud, as is just about everything you write, I can now observe.

    5. Reading comprehension: FAIL.

      There is nothing in the legislation that declares a fetus “viable at 6 weeks”,

      1. ‘viable’ is the precedence set by Roe v Wade.
        If it has ZERO chance of survival – it’s not murder.

        1. Learn the difference between precedent and precedence. Ignorance is not a good look;

          Nor is letting points made go whooshing above your head. To repeat: There is nothing in the legislation that declares a fetus “viable at 6 weeks”. Absent that the post to which I replied suggested implications that made zero sense.

  8. The Democrats should slip something into their reconciliation or budget bill denying any federal money to states like Texas. Shit they could make it federal crime to harass anyone seeking abortion and lock up about half tbe Texas State legislature.

    1. lol if you really are Sullum … I don’t know how to finish this

      1. He sullumly swears he is not.

      2. The people who work at Reason don’t care two shits about the commenters on here.

        I hate NY, but it’s better than the rural shitholes most commenters call home on here.

        1. There’s Trumpers in every state and city. Stupidity does not recognize geographic boundaries.

          1. However people in rural shitholes are mostly backwards rubes.

            1. The flipside is that they are far less likely to be insipid pricks than their urban counterparts.

              Seriously, only New Yorkers like NY. Everyone else thinks they’re assholes

              1. Not gonna argue with you there. Fuck NY.

                Fuck the south and rural shitholes more though.

                1. I can go into the woods and shoot all the guns I want and smoke all the weed I want. My neighbors aren’t nosy tyrants. My taxes are low. Cost of living is low. No toll roads. Low pollution. I don’t have to worry about high crime rates. I don’t have to wear a face diaper or show my papers to go about my daily routine. It’s really awful.

          2. If I want to find Peak Stupidity all I have to do is locate you.

            1. …that was @chipper, btw. I shouldn’t have to say that in my text. The comment software here is abysmal.

    2. And the States should make it a crime to send in troops w/o a declaration of war..or having a central bank print money to fund govt..that clearly is unconstitutional..in fact most of the Federal Govt is not allowed for the Constitution and since the Federal Govt is a compact of the States..maybe its time the States shut the corrupt and nonconstitional parts down..(every agency created since say 1932?)

      1. The Federal Government has been nothing of the sort since the War of Northern Aggression.

    3. They could pass all sorts of nonsense. You think the bluecoats are going to invade TX again if SCOTUS doesn’t double down on Roe vs Wade?

  9. No one cares about SCOTUS precedents. The “Justices” are partisan players just like any other politician. To pretend otherwise is just lying.

    1. something is either unconstitutional or it’s not. Precedence means nothing.

      Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision that should be immediately overturned. They literally made shit up because they wanted a result, like all good leftists do.

      If it’s that important to you than pass a law in your state or amend the constitution

      1. It is also a lie to pretend that Rs don’t do the same thing. They “interpret” the Constitution to fit their own political goals.

        1. waiting for an example

          1. Qualified Immunity. Prohibiting judges to hear cases about partisan gerrymandering. Giving religious organizations the ability to opt-out of laws the rest of us have to follow.

            1. You realize Qualified Immunity was created in 1967, right? I’m pretty sure the court was liberal then.

              1. ya but Hobby Lobby lol

              2. And what judges can’t hear about jerrymandering?

                Ohio just had a court strike down their voting maps like 3 years ago.

            2. Wow. This is dumb even for you.

            3. It’s funny you think those first two are exclusively Republican.

            4. Qualified immunity sucks and neither the Dems or the Reps are giving that one up. Districting is to be done by the legislatures of the states and the judiciary doesn’t have a role in this. The first amendment prohibits the free practice of one’s religion. Any law that attempts to abridge a religious right is unconstitutional.

            5. You seem to have lost the thread. Qualified Immunity isn’t an (R) invention. SCOTUS does in fact hear cases about partisan gerrymandering. RFRA does not in fact give religious organizations the ability to opt out of laws.

          2. The “war on drugs”.

            1. Again, not an example of “R’s ‘interpreting’ the Constitution to fit their own political goals.” E,g., tougher laws against crack than cocaine was originally a political project of the Black Caucus.

            2. Let me know when the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of Congress, end the war on drugs.

      2. “amend the constitution” — NOT really needed the word ‘born’ is *already* in there.

      3. *sigh* Learn the difference between “precedent” and “precedence”.

        1. precedence noun; the fact of coming or occurring earlier in time
          precedent adjective; an earlier occurrence of something similar

    2. Agree. There was that Democratic Party stacked SCOTUS that ruled against Dred Scott.

      1. The Democratic Party of pre-civil war and reconstruction has little in common with the party of today. It was conservative southerners who supported it. Now who do conservative southerners support?

          1. Conservative southerners support Joe Biden?

            Funny. Biden only won Georgia and Virginia in 2020.

        1. So it was the conservatives that tried to tear the country apart and—wait, doesn’t ‘conserve’ mean to keep?

          Who wanted to keep the Union, to conserve the Union? Oh, that’s right, the Republicans. They wanted to implement and conserve the idea that all men are created equal–said idea having been suppressed by democrats in favor of progressively greater use of slavery.

          No, the Democrats, and the left, have always advocated racial oppression. And they always will.

    3. Supreme Court justices often make decisions against any expected political bias, because they have deep respect for the law. Justice Roberts, for example, has disappointed anyone who though he would be a partisan.

      1. Except he swings too far in the opposite direction and horseshoes around. Roberts cares so much about maintaining the appearance of non-partisanship that he looks for any excuse to side with the liberal justices on highly politicized cases likely to polarize the Court. In other words, his interpretive framework is colored by political considerations, and it has just as much to do with cultivating his legacy as chief justice as with any noble regard for “institutional integrity.”

      2. Roberts has disappointed anyone who thought he had “deep respect for the law”.

  10. “But in the meantime, S.B. 8 is plainly inconsistent with what the Court has said about constitutional limits on abortion regulations.”

    Now do Obergefell….

    1. Obergfell is perfectly consistent with what the Court has said in cases like Obergfell

      1. Obergefell was inconsistent with all understanding of the Constitution since 1789, as was Roe. Complaining now about conflict with (recent) precedent is absurd. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    2. Legal precedents are always up in the air until the Court hands progressive activists their desired outcome, in which case the decision constitutes a sacred auto-superprecedent.

  11. The federal government has no authority or standing in the area of abortion law. 10th Amendment is pretty clear.

    1. Well, one could argue that the 14th amendment prevents States from depriving any person of life without due process of law . . .

      1. How does banning abortions deprive people of life? Seems it does the opposite.

        1. A federal ban on abortion would be as constitutionally defensible as a federal law against murder I think, assuming a fetus is a person which is the only reasonable position. Though the grant of power to the federal government for either of these things could perhaps be doubted.

      2. … And ‘life’ inherently begins at ‘born’ as stated in the EXACT SAME amendment.

        1. … And it also prevents States from depriving LIBERTY without due process of law.

        2. Where does it say that? You’re imagining things, very delusional.

          1. Very first 3 words, “All persons born”

            1. You’re too dumb to be worth responding to.

              But. Yeah, all persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction (key phrase for a different issue), are citizens of the US and of their State.

              So unborn persons are not made citizens under this provision. But they’re still persons.

    2. The fetal tissue market is clearly interstate commerce therefore federal regulation is appropriate.

      1. In-state abortion is not interstate commerce,

        1. Wickard v. Filburn has entered the chat.

    3. No government has any authority on people´s uteruses and their contents.

  12. Just like slavery used to be legal as well. Another doctrine that maintained some humans were not human.

    1. No one should be involuntarily bound to labor in the service of another (unless you’re a pregnant woman)

      1. Or a parent forced to provide for their child. Or a child forced to do whatever their parent tells them to do. If either fails to live up to their obligations, the parent can be arrested.

        Seriously, the parent-child bond is unique, where two people are legally, mutually bound, and both are arguably enslaved to the other if you look at it the right direction. This only extends the parental bond prenatally.

        1. After-birth parental obligations can be modified to mere financial support, or even be terminated completely. Why should pre-birth “parental” obligations be inescapable?

          1. They can be modified or terminated through a certain process and time. Just like prebirth.

            1. The process enables to modify/end the post-birth parental obligations in a very significant way. No such way other than abortion is possible pre-birth, since if the parent is required to gestate to term, she has to endure precisely what she intends to terminate.

              1. “she has to endure precisely what she intends to terminate.”

                Not if she intends to terminate the life of the child, which usually lasts around 70 or 80 years. She can give it up right away and have nothing to do with it.

                1. She intends to terminate the pregnancy. The process that is harmful to her body.

      2. Never heard of child support laws, eh?

        1. Which are also B.S. laws. Using one bad law to justify another bad law isn’t ‘justice’.

      3. ^THIS POINT EXACTLY
        No one should be involuntarily bound to labor in the service of another (unless you’re a pregnant woman)…

      4. No pregnant person became that way involuntarily. Unless of course the sex was involuntary.

        As others are pointing out — try neglecting to feed, clothe, or shelter your child. See what happens. Do you disagree with these laws?

        1. Needless to say; They become children of the State instead of prosecuting the mother with murder charges.

          1. You’re obviously pretty ignorant and haven’t thought this through. Every year small children are killed by neglect. In one news story I had the misfortune of seeing, the druggie parents left the baby in a swing until her flesh began rotting due to feces in the diaper.

            1. When you find a case where a fetus’s flesh in a pregnant women begins to rot is your position to charge the women with neglect?

              1. Is your position that the druggie parents have done nothing wrong?

                Because that jerk baby doesn’t get to make demands on them and they should not be involuntarily bound to labor in service of it?

                1. Instead of using gov-guns to *force* druggie parents to care for their baby; the baby is removed from their parents and given to the State for proper care / adoption.

                  It doesn’t matter how you try to swing your deceptive stance. In a free society it’s not ethical to use Gov-Gun-Forces to *force* people to do what you think they should be doing.

  13. Uh oh faux libertarians are concerned that the womyns can’t get their abortion on demand.

  14. Put aside the Roe hand-wringing and abortion battlefield (which I take no position on here) – procedurally Texas SB8 is a mess that should be unconstitutional.

    – Can the legislature create a cause of action that doesn’t require standing? Some of SCOTUS’s precedent suggests not. (And while Article V of the US Constitution might not bind state courts, as soon as it gets removed to federal court for implicating a constitutional right, the federal court should be able to dismiss for lack of standing. Meanwhile, the Texas Constitution’s language regarding its state judiciary might be relevant, but I am not familiar).

    -The intentional ‘process is the punishment’ arrangement should be unconstitutional. It turns due process on its head (you’re punished before the decision).

    -The state shouldn’t be able to tie the hands of the defense like that. It would seem to violate the right of trial by jury in a meaningful way.

    -Texas courts shouldn’t be able to ignore governing precedent – that should be an absolute defense against this kind of nonsense, and you should be able to raise it as such.

    1. With the rat out your neighbor clauses, and explicitly giving standing to any Texan basically, it’s almost like the Republicans wanted it to get taken up to the SC.

      1. I don’t know if you are being coy or not, but that is exactly what Republicans want. They are hoping a case will make it to SCOTUS and overturn Roe v. Wade (or at least start whittling away at it) That’s been the plan with all the fetal heartbeat laws that have been getting passed the last few years

        1. It was a little tongue-in-cheek.

      2. Exactly. SCOTUS doesn’t have to declare the whole package unconstitutional. They can strike only parts of it if they choose. If the Court overturns the snitching business and leave the heartbeat detection threshold alone, voila.

    2. It’s the NEXT SCOTUS precedent that determines whether something is “Constitutional” or not, not the last couple centuries of precedent.

      There are all sorts of laws giving standing to sue by non-parties. And yet you question NOW whether legislatures can do this?

      Also, if “process is the punishment” is unconstitutional then a lot of current process is unconstitutional. Again, you only question this NOW?

      What on earth does “tie the hands of the defense” mean?

      1. Only when it gets to SCOTUS. That there is existing precedent is *binding* on lower courts, and absolutely something the defense should be able to raise as a defense in a lawsuit.

        All sorts of laws might give non-parties standing to sue, but at least in some cases I’m aware of, SCOTUS has pretty routinely said ‘there must be an injury-in-fact suffered by the plaintiff’. Legislatures can say all sorts of dumb things, and the courts will frequently tell them they’re dumb.

        I’d say there’s a difference between the process being the punishment by accident, and the process being the punishment *by design*. (It’s problematic even in the first case, but intentionally structuring a system around it is worse.)

        “Tie the hands of the defense” means tell the defense they can only make particular arguments, regardless of what other arguments might factually bear on the allegation.

        Also, why do you think I don’t have a problem with those things in the other situations where they arise?

  15. This is all just posturing anyways. The underlying logic behind Roe v. Wade makes no sense. There is no Constitutional right to abortion, regardless of what SCOTUS says. Until SCOTUS addresses that flawed ruling, abortion will remain as the 21st century Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. A truly evil, immoral ruling that everyone knew was wrong but couldn’t bring themselves to confront their own demons.

    1. Awe the ‘negative rights’ prospective… If it’s not specifically granted it doesn’t exist… That’s entirely not the scope or purpose of the Constitution. It’s a law over government; not an entitlement page of rights.

      1. It was wrongly decided because the 10th Amendment is still a thing.

        1. So long as said abortion is allowed to happen across state lines and we ignore the 14th Amendment. I suppose Texas can *dictate* pregnant women’s bodies into being incubators against their will.

          Then again; I suppose Texas can re-enact slavery too. Since slavery also assures no lazy bum dependent on others will starve to death as long as that slavery isn’t race based..

  16. The Sweeping Texas Abortion Ban That Took Effect Today Is Plainly Inconsistent With SCOTUS Precedents
    Because the Supreme Court so far has not intervened, post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.

    Correct. And once SCOTUS intervenes, more states may follow suit. That’s because SCOTUS has already indicated that they may want to revisit Roe v. Wade.

  17. But since SCOTUS didn’t immediately jump in, rather than waiting until a suit is filed, they’re all Roman Catholic GQPers who hate abortion – or at least say the commenters on the Washington Post.

    1. Only Roman Catholics and Jews are allowed on the Supreme Court. Everybody knows that.

  18. Kindof amusing that we have people on both sides of the issue accusing the other side of being “faux libertarians”

    1. People really do have trouble seeing “both sides”.

      I personally think that there is no libertarian argument for affirmatively sanctioning the death of a baby.

      I also think these laws fail to account for the human condition. They rank up with drug prohibition on the futility scale. 50M women will have sex because they are wired that way. If birth control is 95% effective then you get 2.5M unintended babies.

      What exactly do we expect to happen next?

      I don’t mean this to single out women. It’s just that they are the rate limiting step.

      1. I think there are valid libertarian arguments on both sides. Personally I am persuaded by the right to bodily autonomy. I can’t be forced to donate a kidney to someone, even to save their life. I can even be dead and you can’t take my kidney unless I gave permission before I died.
        So in my view, even if we assume life (and thus natural rights) begin at conception, a fetus still cannot override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and thus cannot claim right to her uterus sans ongoing permission from the woman who owns that uterus.

        1. The woman doesn’t get to invite the fetus in and then kill it when it poses no physical threat to her.

          1. But it does. Every pregnancy has the potential to kill the woman.

        2. On the other hand, I find bodily autonomy the worst argument put forth by the pro-choice movement.

          First, using your logic, if you have two conjoined twins with one heart, one could evict the other, even if it means their sibling’s death. That’s an obviously absurd conclusion.

          Second, the parent-child relationship is unique. A parent has legal obligations to the child. If they fail in this obligation, they can be prosecuted. Parents are routinely fined or arrested for failure to provide for the needs of their child, either directly or through child support. The pro-life argument merely extends this existing obligation prenatally.

          Third, this ignores the temporal aspect. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney. However, once donated, you cannot demand your kidney back. The fetus already exists and is present. Taking an active step to kill them better resembles the latter, taking back something that has already been given.

          Therefore, I think this is an exceedingly weak argument that shouldn’t be used.

          1. I see five common lines of approach for the ethical abortion apologist:

            (A) The fetus isn’t alive. — fails biology 101
            (B) The fetus is alive, but isn’t human yet. — fails biology 101
            (C) The fetus is human, but isn’t a person yet. — Highly debatable
            (D) The fetus is a person, but doesn’t have rights. — Special pleading
            (E) The fetus is a person with rights, but the mother’s right to abort wins in a clash of rights. — Highly debatable

            C and E are their best bet, but neither is anywhere close to being conclusive. A sixth, possibly more fruitful avenue the pro-choicer could take, though it has to do with legal rather than moral philosophy, is that (F) abortions do in fact violate the rights of unborn persons, but there is a class of violations that should not be prohibited by law (e.g., unenforceable in practice, so prohibition turns out to be symbolic legislative virtue signaling), and abortion falls into this category.

          2. I agree because it’s not convincing to anyone on the other side. Obviously, if bodily autonomy conflicts with another’s life, there will be nuances involved.

            But since there was never an ethical system in the history of the world that treated fetuses as full persons until the evangelical right decided it would be politically useful to pretend so, the burden of the argument is not on the pro-choice side.

            1. An appeal to tradition combined with mind-reading

              1. Sorry, but prolifers are the conservative ones, the ones who wish to bring back the “good” old times when abortions were not legal. But the reason for abortions not being legal was not fetal personhood, it was control over women. Fetal personhood (since conception!) is a new made up argument, since controlling women has become less popular.

                1. “But the reason for abortions not being legal was not fetal personhood, it was control over women.”

                  Yeah, I’m gonna need some solid citations on this one.

              2. An appeal to preserving a status quo definition of personhood that also happens to maximize the basic rights of women. Sounds like win-win for everybody.

                1. It seems the whole argument over abortion rights is based on two differing ideas of what personhood is. Not exactly a status quo.

                  Your argument that pro lifers only started in on this issue of abortion in recent decades also kinda coincides with abortion becoming a widespread practice. It’s not like abortions were a common place and openly public behavior and then one day people just decided to become mean old pro-lifers. The truth is, abortions were happening but it has long been taboo and secretive. When the issue became more public, with groups like Planned Parenthood making their business model about it, the same people who always treated abortion as a taboo practice became similarly open and vocal about it.

            2. Tony, I would refer you to the Hippocratic Oath, which not only predates evangelicals but Christianity’s legalization in Rome. It begins with an oath to Apollo, and includes this section.

              “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art.”

              So, no. The idea that abortion is deadly medicine isn’t new at all.

    2. Those supporting the law have no shortage of other auth right views though, so I think that’s an easier case to make.

      And what exactly is the counterargument here, everyone knows on the core issue of abortion there’s a strong libertarian argument either way. So that really just leaves the mechanics of this law, which are garbage from any reasonable perspective outside of extreme corner of auth right even if you take the ‘abortion is murder’ side. But that’s who commenters here mostly are, for so many reasons. Sociopathic fascists who just wanted to seem edgy by calling themselves a libertarian rather than Republican despite sharing almost no views that separate those two.

      1. If you take the “abortion is murder” position, isn’t a law that just allows lawsuits and not actual criminal charges for murder a more lenient approach. Seems the “sociopathic fascist” approach would be to actually mean what you say when you say abortion is murder, and treat a participant in an abortion as murderer.

        You assert that a lot of people here in support of this law also secretly hold auth-right views. What are those views? Who do you think holds them?

  19. What is the moral logic behind a baby being protected unless daddy is a felon?

    Once we accept that the rape and incest exceptions are just raw political compromise, then there’s no point in pretending the rest of the law needs grounding in medical ethics.

    1. I’m trying to figure out why “incest” keeps getting brought up. Rape I understand, but why incest?

    2. It is a very dick move to make a woman carry a baby to term when the sex was forced upon her. It is victimizing her twice.

      1. It’s a dick move to kill that same baby. The baby didn’t consent either and isn’t responsible for the crime.

        1. The baby cannot be legally killed for this reason. Babies are born, and those are illegal to kill for any reason.

          1. Babies are unborn, too. Millions of women refer to unborn babies as babies every day, it’s an extremely common use of the word, and the definition of a word is defined by its usage. Dictionaries also define a fetus as an unborn human baby. We all know that you want to twist an impose the meaning of words to advance a political agenda, but that’s mentally ill degenerate authoritarianism.

            1. See, but the common vernacular doesn’t count in a court. I can call my car my baby, but it doesn’t give it individual rights like a person.

              The idea that life begins at conception is a conceit of anti-abortion folks. It isn’t actually real. Nor is it true. Nor is it a valid reason to invade another person’s life and force your religious beliefs on them.

              Unless you also hate that the First Amendment protects me from being forced to follow your religious beliefs rather than my own?

      2. It is a very dick move to make a woman carry a baby to term when the sex was forced upon her. It is victimizing her twice.

        And is this even an issue? Even under this Texas law?

        Do women who’ve been raped wait a month or so before taking an morning after pill or getting the thing aborted?

        The idea that later term abortions from rape are a thing is absurd.

  20. Oh little Jake..abortion is just in the blood I guess with you folks.

    Roe vs Wade was a clearly unconstitutional decision. No where in the Constitution was abortion mentioned as a natural right (or in the Declaration of Independence) or at all. As such abortion sans a Constitutional Amendment was always a State issue. Texas has every right to make this law and the Federal Govt should have No authority to outlaw it.

    morally abortion is suspect, legally it is the States who make the call not the Feds. Focus on the Federal Reserve, Election corruption, cultural marxism invading our laws through “equity” and foreign wars. Abortion is not an issue for libertarians..stopping woke authortiarians in DC is the issue of importance…

    1. The right to be left alone and live your private life as you see fit does not exist? There is no need for a specific right to abortion, it is the right to not have your private, intimate and family life regulated with arbitrary nonsense.

  21. https://mobile.twitter.com/darakass/status/1433051908554514438

    “Get on Birth Control

    Now.

    Any form that is reliable.

    Oral Contraceptives, Nuva Ring, Norplant, IUD.

    Something.

    Now.”

    In other words, since baby murder is no longer an option, start taking responsibility for your own sexual choices.

    1. Or…only have sex with someone you want to have children with. Maybe you could even have a ceremony of some kind indicating your mutual wish to have a fruitful relationship.

      1. Is that last one like same sex marriage but for people of the opposite sex?

      2. Before they do that, though, they would have to understand and accept that the biological purpose of having sex is to produce children, and not “empowering yourself.”

      3. OK, boomer. Do you want us to stay off your lawn, too?

        People have been having premarital sex forever. They will continue to do so until the Earth plunges into the Sun or we are wiped out by a hyper-intelligent alien species or however the world ends.

        Premarital sex isn’t wrong. Sex isn’t only for procreation. And the idea that people use abortion as birth control is one of the most ignorant fallacies spread by anti-abortionists. Even worse than abortion giving you cancer or that it will make you sterile. And those are incredibly ignorant.

    2. I guess, when the law is overturned, her daughter can go back to using abortion as her primary birth control method.

  22. How does every person in the Texas and the U.S. have standing to file these anticipated lawsuits?

    1. Because it’s either try this route or just back off in the face of the abortion-philes.

    2. Well, Bill de Blasio just gave a press conference to fuel progressive fear and outrage, asserting such “right-wing extremism” adversely affects New Yorkers. (Don’t ask how. And don’t ask about economic conditions in his city either because NYC residents, apparently, should be more upset by what goes on in the Texas state legislature.)

  23. The point is for challenges to this law to wend their way up the state courts to the U. S. Supreme Court.

    If they leave room for the case to be heard by a federal circuit court, the circuit judges can strike down the law, keep the Supreme Court’s hands clean, and the Supreme Court can duck the case.

    This is the usual Punch-and-Judy show when Republicans want to pretend to be anti-abortion. They pass a law they know the circuit court will strike down, then they say, “well, we tried, just give us more money.”

    But this new statute is serious. They want to deprive the lower federal courts of any pretext for sticking their noses in. And by the time a case gets into state court, the federal courts have rules (usually) against intervening in an ongoing state proceeding. Then it will go up the ladder of state courts, hopefully be upheld, and the U. S. Supreme Court will *have* to say whether it’s sticking with Roe/Casey or not.

    In other words, the Supreme Court will have to show whether they are going to do anything to protect the unborn, they won’t be able to farm out the dirty work to lower courts.

    No wonder the “reproductive rights” crowd is filling its pants.

    1. You don’t even know why you hate abortion. You just know that it’s one of the only actual principles Republicans have left, and by God you’re going to hang onto it.

      1. Come now, Tony. You’re better than this. The pro-life crowd has a very simple principle. “Don’t murder babies”. It’s one of the things they hang onto as a base principle because it is so simple.

        In fact, it’s one of the few policies that I feel almost everyone has chosen their side based on principle, not on their “side”, as there is significant pro-life in the Democrats, and pro-choice in the Republicans (in fact, the “least of a choice of evils” is one of the largest pro-choice positions).

  24. Roe v. Wade is a SCOTUS precedent as deserving of respect as Wickard.

  25. Yep, the Texas law is absolutely inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents . . . that are themselves completely inconsistent with the US Constitution.

    You want legal abortion? Win state elections, or amend the Constitution. I grant that’s a pain in the ass to do, but that’s what the actual rule of law (as opposed to a dictatorship of judges) looks like.

    1. You want legal abortion? Defend yourself against authoritarianism. Tyranny of the majority against individuals is still tyranny.

  26. “The government should force women to give birth against their will, even in cases of rape.”

    –Libertarians finding yet another exception to their small-government dogma

    1. Should the government allow some humans to kill other humans absent due process?

      1. Should it investigate who is pregnant right now and how is their pregnancy progressing, or should it leave people alone to live as they please and NOT peep up their private parts?

        1. Should the government allow some humans to willfully kill other humans absent due process?

          This is the question. Nothing about pregnancy or genitalia.

          1. How could the government make an actually effective ban on abortions (even if it was killing of other humans absent due process, which it is not), if they are not informed which women are pregnant right now and are not regularly checking on how are these pregnancies doing? Without that, the government has zero idea whatsoever which woman is terminating her pregnancy right now.

            1. The government can’t make an effective ban on any kind of murder.

              It’s illegal to kill people now. But people still do it.

              All the government can do is legally punish people that murder.

      2. Treating fetuses as full persons with rights is a choice you can make. It would be ahistorical and oppressive to women, so it’s also a choice you don’t have to make.

        1. Well Said Tony,
          “Treating fetuses as full persons with rights is a choice you can make” ….. “so it’s also a choice you don’t have to make.”

          Ever wonder if your partisan hypocrisy disease is out of control?
          Funny how you don’t want to enslave pregnant women but are always gung-ho to enslave everyone else for whatever you can think of.

          1. But I’m not in favor of enslaving anyone.

            1. Oh no; not at all. /s
              *free* heath-care falls from the sky.
              *free* money falls from the sky.
              *free* green-energy falls from the sky.
              Couldn’t possibly be “enslaving” anyone to use Gov-Gun-Forces to get it.

      3. Due Process —

        Were you or were you not in someone else’s house?
        A: Well yes sir I was
        Did the home owner wish or ask you to leave?
        A: Well yes sir they did
        And did you respect that persons house and leave immediately?
        A: Well no, I didn’t because I was starving hungry and had to eat to live.

        And to think the home is more private or respectable than one’s own body is??? Or that an un-viable fetus’s perspective of individuality is more important than one’s own body autonomy.

        How about another one?
        My wife is on death row because she shot the mentally retarded kid next door who came over, over powered her and raped her. Surely being mentally retarded deems his ‘penetration’ innocent. Yet instead of just getting raped and taking it; she shot the kid.

        1. Let’s fix this–

          Due Process —

          Did the defendant force you, against your will, into her house?
          A: Well yes sir, yes she did.

          Did the defendant wish for you to or ask you to leave?
          A: Well yes sir she did, but I was unable to due to what she’d done to get me into her house in the first place.

          Was the plaintiff warned that you might not be able to leave if she did so??
          A: I do not know, sir, I was not there at the time.

          And did you respect that persons house and leave immediately?
          A: Well no, I didn’t because I was unable to due to what she’d done to me.

          Was that when she tried to kill you?
          A: Yes, sir

          And this–

          My wife is on death row because she shot the mentally retarded kid next door who came over, over powered her and raped her. Surely being mentally retarded deems his ‘penetration’ innocent. Yet instead of just getting raped and taking it; she shot the kid.

          is doing the same thing and ignoring the fact that she did everything needed to make the kid, knowing that it could make a kid, but going ahead anyway.

          1. lol… You’d have a point *if* women were ->forcingforcing<- is what should be illegal.

            I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure most of these pregnancies are an accident. If that be true then 'accidentally' asking someone into your house who turns out to be an UN-welcomed guest doesn't thwart the ability to kick them out.

            1. Women and men DO force the fetus into being in the womb. It has no choice in the matter.

              If you do all the things that CAN force a fetus into existence, you cannot call it an ‘accident’ when the logical outcome of what you were doing happens.

              It is not at all the same as ‘accidentally’ inviting someone in who turns out to be unwelcome. It is more like having a party in a house with one room that can be locked and not reopened for a year, making everyone to check out all the rooms without telling them about this, and then killing anyone who gets stuck in that room because it’s too inconvenient to feed them for a year. Even though you’re the one whose actions got them stuck.

              1. lol… That’s pretty humorous.. You’re actually pushing for a law to *force* the fetus into being in the womb while blaming individual men and women for it.. Way to Spin the Narrative.. Is that like a, “They made me do it” excuse or what?

                And just and FYI — Fetuses don’t make choices because they aren’t developed enough to comprehend a choice in the matter. Your ideology hangs on some assumption that someone on life support get to decide when life support ends without any previous conscience state of notification. And WHO decides when the subject is unconscious?? FAMILY! That’s who… It’s not any of your business and it’s not any of the governments business.

                If you want to lobby for your state government to survive all fetus ejections if possible and care for them be my guest. You want to incubate all fertilized eggs into children; take responsibility for your stance. Don’t *just* pretend you have the power of authority to demand others do exactly as you wish them to and make-up B.S. excuses in bad faith about it.

  27. I don’t really have much interest in abortion one way or the other. But it’s sure been a pleasure to hear the left screaming like stuck pigs over this. How come we can’t have news like this every day?

    1. The leftists being angry is more important than having freedom, understandably.

  28. LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION NOT PERCEPTION. Locksmith Denver

    1. And not every ‘life’ is deemed so precious it is automatically granted gun-forced servitude by any other ‘life’.

  29. And at the MEAT of the issue.

    IT’S NOT ANY OF THE GOVERNMENTS GD BUSINESS!!!
    Stop pretending the world revolves around Gov-Gods.

    1. Next Up; How pregnancies fail due to alcohol, tobacco, vitamin deficiencies, etc, etc… And the Gov-Gods will need to make sure any pregnant women willfully participating in lack of perfect health is “murdering” her ?baby?…..

      This is not a good direction for Republicans to be going in.

    2. Murder is the government’s business.

      1. The Defense — One Woman walked into the clinic and One Woman walked out. What murder? Some pretend murder of a part of a person? Did my hair get murdered at the barber shop? Did my tooth get murdered at the dentist? Did entire families get murdered when testicles are removed?

        The prosecution argues in bad faith.

  30. That’s because SCOTUS precedents have been inconsistent with the Constitution for 40 years.

  31. “The law’s reach is so broad that it clearly violates the Court’s abortion precedents. ”

    Good, because the Courts abortion precedents clearly violate the Constitution.

    1. In the aspect that it never granted the Union Government the authority to be meddling in people’s own healthcare.

  32. I’m definitely more Pro Life than Pro Choice. I think the SCOTUS woefully ruled against hundreds of years of precedence when they said a woman had the right to choose whether she carries a living being to full term or not with full elective control. That was a mistake in my opinion, and the SCOTUS chose to create law instead of push to congress to form law, which is their job. We threw the baby out with the bath water on Pro Choice freedom and we’ve paid for it. We have medical facts that fetuses are viable well before many ultra progressive laws supporting abortion draw the line. Is 6 weeks to early? Honestly, I don’t think that it is.

    If you’re raped, which includes incest (let’s stop separating that), then unwilling sex is unwilling sex no matter what and you should take action to avoid pregnancy. We should be making extreme pushes to let women know to consult a medical professional ASAP after unprotected sex and they will be given an examination or contraceptives that can stop pregnancy in its extreme infancy. My ex wife and I knew she was pregnant within 2-4 weeks of conception and would have had 3 weeks to discuss next steps if we wanted to under Texas law. That’s fine by me. We did have that discussion too and it didn’t take long to make the call of allowing the pregnancy and now we have a wonderful boy who brings a lot of light and love into our world. I wish we would take a federal approach to abortion and just saw something like 6-8 weeks is the cutoff, period, and here are the resources to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Practice abstinence or use contraceptives – we have amazing options for women now that stop pregnancy from happening with unprotected sex (called the depo shot) and the women I know that use it swear by it. It also only costs like $20-$30 on insurance and isn’t much more off of insurance.

    I think we can build sensible, humane abortion rules and I think we should.

    1. sensible, humane abortion rules —
      Easy Peasy…
      1. Women can eject their fetus at any time they choose.
      2. Doctors cannot ‘kill’ said fetus and depending on state may try to survive it. At which time the child can be a child of the State.

      Nobody gets enslaved and nobody gets purposely killed.

  33. Out of all the rights I’d personally love to strip from the women species in general. The right to have authority over her *own* body isn’t one I’m going to support.

  34. This approach to privatizing the enforcement of an unconstitutional law has been tried before in the battle to sustain racial discrimination in housing. Almost exactly the same strategy was used in the aftermath of 1948’s Shelly v. Kraemer decision, which banned state enforcement of racial covenants in deeds. Since the state could not enforce racial covenants in deeds, people started bringing suit against white people who sold their homes to blacks or Asians in violation of covenants. Many backwards courts thought this was just fine, but the Supremes struck it down in 1953. If the court has any respect for stare decisis, they have to overrule this attack. The only alternative is to totally vacate Roe, which might be their plan.

  35. The law’s reach is so broad that it clearly violates the Court’s abortion precedents.

    The Supreme Court is the only body that is, thankfully, not bound by Supreme Court precedents. It is capable of saying “that prior decision was wrong” and moving in a different direction.

    That’s what it just did.

  36. “But….. But….. It’s for the children!!!!”, where has that ever gone wrong?

  37. So I can sue anybody I want as complicit in helping someone get an abortion, and I am not liable at all, and the court must pay all my expenses and give me 10k if it is not thrown out.

    So if I see a woman go out of state, I can assume they are going to try and get an abortion and sue the driver of the car?
    So, I can sue any member of the Texas legislature with a wife or a girlfriend going to a doctor, since I can assume they are trying to get an abortion.

    Hmmm…playing the odds here might be lucrative.

  38. A woman should be free to have an abortion whenever she wants. It’s HER body, not yours. And a fetus is not a “baby”: it has no clear memory, no real conscience, no language – it may have brain cells and a heart, but so does a chicken, you anti-choice libertarians of my ass.

  39. I’m a huge lib, but the fact remains this law has brought up some serious and valid questions about this type of legislation that shifts enforcement off the state and onto people. Regardless of my opinion on abortion this law is in desperate need of an actual supreme court decision.

    It would seem to be in the best interest of everyone for that happen. If the Republicans nominated the “right” justices it should be a slam dunk. Yet the right has found ample opportunities to trash all of Trump’s nominees while the left has found that in many cases Trump’s appointees are reasonable jurists who join their liberal colleagues far more often than they thought they would.

Please to post comments