Supreme Court

Conservatives Should Worry About the Texas Abortion Law Too

The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.

|

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman may have an abortion for any reason during the first three months of pregnancy. During the next three months, up to the point of fetal "viability," the state may only enact abortion regulations that are "reasonably related to maternal health." During the final trimester of pregnancy, Roe said, a state may regulate "and even proscribe" abortion, except when "the preservation of the life or health of the mother" is at stake. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court both upheld Roe's core recognition of a woman's right to have an abortion and introduced a new standard of review in abortion cases. According to Casey, it is unconstitutional for a state to enact a pre-viability regulation for "the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion." That, the Court held, would "impose an undue burden on the right."

Senate Bill 8, the Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect this week, is unconstitutional under these precedents. The Texas law bans all abortions, with no exception even in cases of rape or incest, after the sixth week of pregnancy, which is not only before the point of fetal viability but also before most women even know that they are pregnant. If the Roe/Casey precedents are enforced against this restriction in federal court, the Texas law will be struck down.

The law's authors know this so they tried to do an end run around the federal courts. Normally, when a state regulates or bans a particular activity—be it abortion, gun possession, or whatever—state officials do the enforcing and state officials are the ones who must answer in federal court when regulated parties raise a constitutional objection. S.B. 8 was expressly structured so that Texas can dodge all such legal accountability for its own law.

How? The law bans most abortions but says that state officials are not the enforcers. Rather, the abortion ban "shall be enforced exclusively through…private civil actions." According to the law, "any person" may sue "any person who…aids or abets the performance or inducement of abortion" and win a $10,000 award plus legal fees if the civil suit is successful. According to Texas, this unique scheme means that the state cannot be hauled into federal court to account for its own law because it has handed over the law's enforcement to private parties.

That legal stunt temporarily succeeded this week when a 5–4 Supreme Court declined an emergency request to block the law from going into effect while a legal challenge plays out in the lower courts. "The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," said the unsigned majority opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson. But because of the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions also presented"—meaning, can state officials actually be sued in federal court over this particular state law?—the majority declined to take action.

Writing in dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts described the Texas law as "unprecedented" and maintained that the Court should have temporarily stopped it from going into effect "so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner." Also writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed that "the Court's failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review."

Roberts and Sotomayor are right. The state's conniving attempt to avoid responsibility for its own law does not deserve to stand.

Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are. After all, if the Texas scheme actually succeeds in the long run, what's to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home, in clear violation of SCOTUS precedent, and then placing state officials beyond the reach of federal judicial review by outsourcing the ban's enforcement to an army of private-sector gun control activists? Most gun shops would probably go bankrupt overnight when faced with the wave of private-sector civil suits that such a state law would unleash. Is that the future that conservatives want?

Regardless of what you think about the issue of abortion, the Texas abortion law is a legal menace.

NEXT: Reddit's Messy Fight Over COVID Misinformation

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. Weed, ass sex, and Mexicans Reason was way better than COVID and Abortion Reason.

    1. 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.FBn simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now………………. VISIT HERE

      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. HE 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.

        Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

      2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.HJt I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

        For more detail ……………. VISIT HERE

    2. Food trucks, Science, and MOAR buttsex will help address the other two issues.

      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.DSx 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. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.EDf I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

        GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

      3. 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.GEx 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

    3. Love how the implication of this (which I agree with) is that libertarians don’t actually care about gun rights.

      1. These libertarians don’t seem to…

        Abortion is the Right’s Gun Control. But not using those methods to restrict Abortion, doesn’t mean the Left will reciprocate on Gun Control.

        This topic sure pisses off the writers here though, a lot more than new gun control regulations do.

        1. “Abortion is the Right’s Gun Control.”

          With the difference that the 2nd amendment isn’t fictional.

          1. I know. While I don’t like how the Texas legislature went about this (you could create a private right of enforcement to infringe on basically anything!), it’s insane that the same people who have no problem restricting the right to bear arms (which is articulated in the text of the constitution) lose their collective minds when conservatives chip away at judicially-created abortion rights (which have no textual basis in the constitution whatsoever). They are incomparable.

      2. Don’t know how you got that. I’m libertarian and I’m pro-choice, pro-RKBA, anti-frivolous lawsuits, anti-SLAPP suits, and pro-loser-pays civil litigation.

        Any questions?

    4. Too bad ‘ol Damon has never read the constitution. Had he, he would know that it guarantees the right to carry, but not to kill your own baby. Conflating the two is simply lame.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.HTR simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now………….. Pays24

  2. Mr. Root, the right to bear arms is codified in the Bill of Rights. The right to kill a human or unborn child or clump of cells with a heartbeat is not.

    1. That “whoosh” noise was the point of the article flying over your head.

      1. What? The “Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are”, line?

        That’s called concern trolling.

        1. The point being that the Bill of Rights limits what the government can do. What Texas is arguing, we can get around that by having enforcement done by civil lawsuits – none involving the government.
          Abortion rights, in Rowe v Wade are based on privacy rights.
          I don’t see how the Texas law gets around that. I would suspect you’d have to prove first their was an abortion…. HIPAA? To sue the doctor, don’t you have to prove the doctor performed the abortion? How can you do that without medical records? How do you bring in 3rd party medical records?

          1. I guess the same way that governments and businesses are forcing people to reveal whether they have been “vaccinated” for COVID.

          2. Abortion isn’t a constitutional right. Comparing 2a rights and abortion “rights” is nonsensical.

            1. You’re missing the point, though.

              I agree with you that abortion is not in the Constitution and should not be a constitutional right. But it currently is. If the Supreme Court had simply overturned Roe v. Wade, that would be one thing. But here, the Court did *not* overturn Roe v. Wade and, instead, blessed a tactic for evading review of laws plainly violating constitutional rights.

              The point of the article is that, if a blue state set a $10,000 bounty on selling or “aiding and abetting the purchase of” a gun, there would be no principled distinction on the question of whether to enjoin the law from taking effect pre-enforcement.

      2. Clearly it whooshed over yours as well. A simple reading of the constitution would help.

    2. Bearing arms, yes, but it doesn’t say anything about using arms. You can carry them around but using them isn’t protected according the language of the Amendment.

      A state could make it a crime to use a gun for any reason and the 2nd amendment wouldn’t actually apply.

      1. The Amendment seems to be about keeping guns available but doesn’t actually go any further and protect how those guns are used. I can think of a million ways to fuck with gun owners.

        1. And they all involve some state agents carrying guns to enforce.

        2. I’ve seen your logical flow in action. Just because you can say “round triangle” doesn’t mean you can make one. Settle for learning how to tie your own shoes and call it a win.

          1. “Just because you can say “round triangle” doesn’t mean you can make one.”

            That’s a great summation of his rhetorical technique.

            1. Just as an aside, you can’t make a ’round triangle’ in Euclidean geometry, but in non-Euclidean geometry you can. Pilots do it all the time by placing the points of the triangle upon a globe and figuring the shortest flight paths upon a curved surface.

        3. I’m sure all those gun owners can think of millions of ways to fuck back.

        4. Yeah, as long as you are willing to die for the privilege. The great thing about lawsuits is that they can’t be done anonymously.

        5. Pretty sure the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to allow for proficiency is using the arms. Otherwise its meaningless.

      2. Man, Koch is wasting his money on you, Sullum.

        1. The writers at reason don’t care two shits what you backwards rubes think.

          1. So? They give zero flicks about you either sugar bear.

          2. You said this before and someone else told you about how whiny ENB is on her Twitter about the evil commenters and how Jacob Dullum, aka Lord of Strazele got so defensive about the comments that he accidentally revealed his secondary account name Lol

            Anyways, Mormons are alive and well and they keep on winning winning winning Lol Loser

      3. No, it wouldn’t; This argument fails even by the incredibly obtuse argument that “bear arms” strictly protects operation as an organized force. A militia bearing arms which they have no experience using is the exact opposite of well-regulated.

        1. You misunderstand what “regulated” meant in the 18th century.

      4. The rest of the uses for arms would come under, and be limiteted by, the rights, to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness.

      5. You are completely anti freedom, aren’t you? And idiotic. So many reasons such a law would be struck down.

        Stupid cunt.

      6. This is the new line of ‘thought’ from your in-group and the associated dim bulbs. Because, ‘bearing’ a tool without the intent to potentially using it seems entirely reasonable. Perhaps you should try rational thought.

      7. By Chumby’s logic you’re right. But of course his logic doesn’t hold up.

      8. Must be liberal logic, or lack of. There is only one purpose for arms, and that purpose is protected.

    3. But the right to not be sued by private parties for having more than 1000 rounds of ammo is not.

      Which is the point they’re making.

      You don’t cut down all the trees in the forest to get at the devil lest there be nowhere for you to hide when he turns on you.

      1. The right to sue is inherent for anything. I could sue you because I don’t like the color of your shoes, but it doesn’t mean I will prevail.

        The question is whether you can sue someone for something that either isn’t in the jurisdiction of the court you are applying to AND isn’t illegal. Your hypothesis is silly unless there’s actually a law against having more than 1000 rounds of ammo and you can prove it in a court that has legal jurisdiction over me with regard to that law.

        1. Prohibiting someone from owning over 1,000 rounds of ammo would be a case law.

        2. There is no right to sue if the Judge deems the suit frivolous, nor if the Judge holds the frivolous suer in contempt of court.

          1. The plaintiff could also be countersued for abuse of process.

            1. Very good idea as well.

    4. I see your point but we are dealing with people who don’t care what’s in the Bill of Rights. Written by dead white slaveholders, etc. And expecting the courts to protect us on the basis of the 2nd Amendment is a risky strategy, at best.

      1. Expecting courts to protect us at all is a risky strategy.
        To arms, or to the trains…

        1. That’s the Nazi Nardz all the other commenters know and love!

          1. You’re the socialist here. Are you too stupid to understand that too?

            1. Yes. Yes he is that stupid.

    5. Neither is posting on the Hit and Run Comments section of a 21st Century Information Age medium codified either.

    6. Thank you for pointing out the 2nd amendment to Reason.

      There is no ‘civil right’ to an abortion in the US Constitution. The Roe v Wade decision was a Frankensteinian, contortion of the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in a warped, twisted conflation of these amendments to ‘create’ a new right out of thin air. The 2nd amendment is clear on its face…shall not be infringed. Good luck to those who think they can civil action their way to gun confiscation. It would not stand.

      1. No contortion of the 9th here. A right does not have to be enumerated in order to exist.

        1. The power for it to exist is retained by the people.
          Not by the nine nazgul.

          1. The Supremes, however, made it official.

            1. The issue wouldn’t be nearly as polarizing had the Supremes left the matter up to the States instead of legislating from the bench. Even RGB acknowledged the Roe majority’s legal reasoning was crap, even though she strongly supported the outcome.

              1. That’s the biggest thing. Roe Vs Wade realistically came up with the best policy with fewest negative externalities, but it’s reasoning is, at best, hash. Then, since it was implemented by judges instead of by legislatures, no one was happy.

        2. For a right to be ‘constitutional,’ however, it does have to be, by definition, in the Constitution. I, like you am pro-choice, but don’t buy into the absurd rhetoric (or any of the associated hyperventilating) that ex post facto birth control is ‘women’s health care.’

          1. For a right to be ‘constitutional,’ however, it does have to be, by definition, in the Constitution.

            But the Bill of Rights explicitly rejects that.

      2. Depends on your view to the right of privacy. If you have no right to privacy, the government could go through all kinds of fishing expeditions to find something to put you in jail for or simply to fine you (Hey look our tax revenue looks a little low).
        So we don’t allow the government to peak in our bedrooms, nor our doctor’s office, up until the point a 3rd party is involved (when the fetus becomes viable on its own).
        Unreasonable search!

        I’m curious to see how such a lawsuit will look in the future. They can’t sue the women getting the abortion, but they can sue… for example, the Uber driver who took her to the clinic (or wherever). How are they going to prove that there was an abortion? Depose the woman and demand her medical records? She is not a party to the lawsuit…. HIPAA?

        1. Where has this “right to privacy” disappeared to now that people are being coerced into revealing their vaccination or antibody status?

    7. Up until 1973, SCOTUS said it was fine to forbid abortion. Up until 2007, SCOTUS paid attention to the whole 2A, not just second clause. Both of those switched. They both may again.

      Regardless, both SCOTUS decisions stand against Congressional action. That’s been read to include state action. Per their latest non-decision, that evidently does not include state-supported private action. “Chumby thinks one is better” is not a reasonable distinction between those two rights.

      1. There is no tension between the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment if the meaning of the word “regulated” is understood in historical context.

    8. You’re missing the point, though.

      I agree with you that abortion is not in the Constitution and should not be a constitutional right. But it currently is. If the Supreme Court had simply overturned Roe v. Wade, that would be one thing. But here, the Court did *not* overturn Roe v. Wade and, instead, blessed a tactic for evading review of laws plainly violating constitutional rights.

      The point of the article is that, if a blue state set a $10,000 bounty on selling or “aiding and abetting the purchase of” a gun, there would be no principled distinction on the question of whether to enjoin the law from taking effect pre-enforcement.

  3. Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are.

    Why? The end justifies the means.

    1. “Why? The end justifies the means.”

      Well sure, he said that conservatives should be just as outrages as liberals are. Both sides use the end justifying the means. So yes, both those statements are correct.

      1. Has any writer for Reason ever said “Liberals should be just as outraged as conservatives”? I don’t recall any.

        1. Probably back in the 90’s when it was still libertarian.

    2. “Why? The end justifies the means.”

      It did with FOSTA, which passed the senate *97-2*. Both parties enjoy siccing civil litigants on things they can’t ban outright. The main difference in this case is that the Texas law allows a much broader class of plaintiffs.

  4. The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.

    I haven’t read the article yet, but this raises some questions in my mind. If abortion has been nominally legal in all 50 states for nearly 50 years, why has the left been going after (and successfully so in many regards) gun rights over that same 50 years? Why would a law passed last Friday limiting abortion to a more narrow set of circumstances portend anything new for gun rights?

    1. Read the article. The state avoids responsibility by having the enforcement be through civil suits, not criminal court. So because it’s activists, not the state, taking people to court, then victims of the law can’t haul the state into federal court to challenge the law.
      What if a similar law is passed giving activists the right to take gun owners to civil court, and the feds just sit back and watch?
      That’s the dangerous precedent.

      1. Still doesn’t address the argument that you say whooshed over Chumby’s head that, in reality, whooshed over yours. The 2A says “shall not be infringed”. Does superprecedent supercede Amendments? Even if it does, where does Roe say “shall not be infringed”?

        The notion that Roe ‘shall not be infringed’ extrapolates to the 2A is pretty absurd.

        1. The article is about the means of enforcement, not the specifics of what is being enforced.

          1. There are varying levels of constitutional scrutiny applied to government conduct depending on the right in question.

            https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained/

        2. Even at the practical level it’s between highly distinct and a moot point. What’s any state going to do? Send private armed goons to deprive you of your guns? Sue you for not killing anyone with your guns? There are a 100 yrs. of those sort of precedents before Roe even conceived.

          1. What’s any state going to do? Send private armed goons to deprive you of your guns? Sue you for not killing anyone with your guns?

            So you didn’t read the article. No, a similar law would empower activists to sue gun owners in civil court for owning guns. No need for armed goons taking guns away. Endless bankrupting lawsuits would force gun owners to get rid of their guns.

            1. So you didn’t read the article.

              So you didn’t even read what I wrote. The 2A clearly states in plain English my right shall not be infringed. Show me where Roe says ‘shall not be infringed’. It doesn’t and as a matter of fact, clearly delineates that there is a point at which a woman’s “right to abort” can and even should be infringed. Here let me quote from the article:

              a state may regulate “and even proscribe” abortion

              Show me where the 2A does anything even remotely similar. You’re an avid reader and I’m not, so it should be easy for you.

              No, a similar law would empower activists to sue gun owners in civil court for owning guns.

              These women aren’t being sued for owning uteruses. They’re being sued for the equivalent of misfires and/or negligent discharge. They absolutely should be able to be heard on the matter.

              1. I did read what you wrote, and again you’re missing the point. The point is that this law cleverly avoids federal scrutiny by having enforcement be done by the public, not the state. So a similar law regarding guns would also avoid scrutiny. Meaning that it couldn’t be challenged on 2A grounds because it’s not the state that is doing the infringement. Heck, they’d probably argue that there isn’t any infringement anyway, since gun owners could keep their guns if they kept paying out in civil court.

                1. That and like you said- imagine there is no penalty for owning it but there is for using it. Sue every gun range into oblivion. Sue someone for shooting into a berm in their backyard, etc. Sue anyone selling ammo.

                  But given the usual trends here, I am absolutely not shocked that some people think the ends justify any means. All these people that are perfectly ok with turning into a communist like dystopia where neighbors are snitching on neighbors. Absurd and frightening.

                  1. All these people that are perfectly ok with turning into a communist like dystopia where neighbors are snitching on neighbors. Absurd and frightening.

                    Didn’t you hear? It’s a war! If creating a communist like dystopia is what it takes to crush your political enemies, then that’s needs to be done!

                    1. People like you don’t survive wars.

                    2. People like you burn down your own home with your family inside to catch a trespasser.

                    3. But we survive wars … and therefore win.

                  2. That and like you said- imagine there is no penalty for owning it but there is for using it. Sue every gun range into oblivion. Sue someone for shooting into a berm in their backyard, etc. Sue anyone selling ammo.

                    Sue all the gun ranges in Chicago? Sue all the firearms and ammo manufacturers *again*?

                  3. Replace abortion with covid and you’d have no problem with it.

                  4. Yes, you and yours have been playing out this tiresome game for some time. Sue anyone for anything of which you disapprove. I will point out, humans tend to rankle under petty tyrannical bullshit, thus the Karen nickname that spread from the black community. As for your attempt to tar any group outside your in-group with ‘the ends justify the means,’ that is purely risible. You manage to ignore the stories here about snitch lines for people who have views that you espouse to turn in those they do not like.

                2. So a similar law regarding guns would also avoid scrutiny.

                  Not would, does.

                  Heck, they’d probably argue that there isn’t any infringement anyway, since gun owners could keep their guns if they kept paying out in civil court.

                  “Assuming you could sue, the chances of winning would be zero. How is that supposed to relate to this article?”

                  1. Not would, does.

                    Shit, to say nothing of private suits, there are local ordinances and federal criminal laws that overtly violate ‘shall not be infringed’. The idea that Texas’s abortion ruling is some sort of gun control silver bullet is beyond laughable.

                3. Now do you see where some of us are coming from in regards to social media and their selectively canceling certain voices/stories?

        3. Gulpgasmic brings nothing of value to a discussion.

          1. On the contrary, they’re making good points.

            You on the other hand, seemed to have swapped your ass for your head somewhere along the way with as much shit is coming out of it.

            1. Does your ass get jealous of all the shit that comes out of your mouth?

      2. Yea, the left totes never does that already.
        Great call, sarc.

      3. “What if a similar law is passed giving activists the right to take gun owners to civil court, and the feds just sit back and watch?”

        Then they’ll lose a lot money in legal costs just to prove a point, because gun ownership is legal. Even if the Brady campaign or Hollywood funds these efforts, there’s a limit to how often they can do this. Eventually judges will recognize lawfare attempts and stop the case from ever reaching court. I could TRY to sue someone at any time.

        This is bit of a legal stunt. I guess libertarians here have now awakened to the perils of trying legislate through private backdoors.

      4. It is called: “dismissed”. Civil action against an actual civil right via the 2nd amendment would not pass muster. Any jurist not seeing that should be removed from the bench. Period.

        1. Which is why a civil suit against Remington is continuing over Sandy Hook, right?

          Isn’t that the exact same mechanism?

      5. Will we run out of gun owners or activists first?

      6. I think this law was conceived through the initiation of Red Flag laws. There too, a person only has the thinnest hoop to claim standing and can accuse someone of being a danger with an extremely low threshold. All of these “karen enabling” laws need to be tossed.

    2. The same “legal ruse” seems to be used quite extensively in attacking the first amendment.

    3. I’ll sum it up for you with hashtags:

      #Anti-Abortionists4DaneGeld
      #AfternoonTVCommercials4MedicalWasteTruckChaserLawyers
      #HumanTraffickersOnThePeople’sCourtAsPlaintiffs
      #MauryPovichFindsANewGrift
      #Rock-Ribbed”RightToLifers”SettlingOutOf Court
      #HackersDataMine4OnlinePlanBPurchases
      #WestboroBaptistChurchBuysSmallNationWithLitigationWinnings
      #RomanCatholicMolesterPriestsSuingOverSupplyChainBreach
      #HumanLifeIsEvidentlyWorth$10,000PlusLegalFees
      #SomeViableAdultLivesReallyAreWorthless

      1. Oh, and her’s another hashtag that should be cautionary for libertarians:

        #AnCapPrivateLawVersusIndivudualRights

        1. I meant to say “here’s another hashtag…”, although hashtags can identify as “her” if they choose.

    4. So someone makes the “Save the Children from Guns” act and allows individuals to sue other individuals for supporting someone who bought or sold a gun or ammunition.
      Which stores do you think would carry ammunition?
      UPS/Fed Ex would not ship it.
      Which stores do you think would carry firearms?
      Pistol ranges might have to close as well. Depends what is meant by “support”.

      So you can still bear your arms…. and ammunition. You just won’t be able to find anyone to sell you guns, parts, ammunition or reloading supplies.
      Might even have trouble finding machine shop supplies (could be used to make a gun).

  5. According to Texas, this unique scheme means that the state cannot be hauled into federal court to account for its own law because it has handed over the law’s enforcement to private parties.

    And that makes the law eminently libertarian, no? You can still perform an abortion, but you do not get to avoid the consequences of doing so. Private choice, private conduct, private consequences.

    Case closed.

    1. “Private choice, private conduct, private consequences.” — The consequences are a large fine-in-all-but-name imposed by der Staat.

      1. You can do whatever you want, but you are not entitled to be immune from the consequences of doing whatever you want.

        Some wise commenter on this site assures everyone of that on a daily basis, but I am drawing a blank as to the name ….

        BiologyJim?
        AnatomyJames?

        Something like that.

        1. But those aren’t natural consequences, but consequences contrived and enforced by the state.

          1. Sitting in prison for pedophilia is a consequence contrived and enforced by the state.

            1. Sure, but you are just begging the question. I don’t think that you would call any law enabling people to sue each other for things that never have been considered torts in the past a “libertarian solution”. I could be wrong.

              1. “Natural consequences.”

                Your term, not mine.

              2. No tort was a tort before it was made one.

                1. True I guess, but so what? If they passed a law saying people could sue you for questioning the results of an election, or talking bad about a vaccine, would you just be saying “well, actions have consequences”. Unless there is a demonstrable harm to the person suing, it’s arbitrary and unreasonable.

            2. So peaceably keeping and bearing arms equals child molestation? Giga-wut?

    2. There’s nothing libertarian about turning your neighbors into government snitches. Giving every Karen and Nosy Nancy this power is the worst part of the bill and will absolutely be used by Democrats in their next bill to fuck with gun owners.

      1. There’s nothing libertarian about turning your neighbors into government snitches.

        How is it snitching? There is a public legal process here. How is it different from any other legal claim litigated in courts? Are courts no longer libertarian? Are legal claims no longer libertarian? Are awards of damages no longer libertarian?

        1. I’m a firm defender of the 2A and am not entirely opposed to the idea. I actually think the 2A *should* be enforced in a more similar approach. These women aren’t being sued simply for their ability to reproduce, they’re being sued for the equivalent of a misfire or accidental discharge. Your gun goes off and rips a hole in your neighbor to the south’s house, they absolutely should be able to sue. Whether the neighbor to the SSW should be able to sue because the bullet travelled over their property and endangered someone is a case for a judge to decide.

          1. But should your neighbor to the north be able to sue (or press charges) if your neighbor to the south doesn’t want to?

            All I’m saying (and I think Damon was trying to say it as well) is this isn’t going to end well. There’s a long and ridiculous history of each sides oxen getting gored on something they did to fuck with the other side (my favorite recent one was when Reid nuked the judicial filibuster).

            1. Of course it won’t end well. But, once it ends badly, people will move on and appreciate the rule of law. Once you get caught in a cycle of revenge, breaking out is impossible until everyone that needs killing is killed. The survivors rebuild with a true understanding of what happens basic norms and the rule of law are abused.

            2. But should your neighbor to the north be able to sue (or press charges) if your neighbor to the south doesn’t want to?

              IDK, if their property values drop, maybe. It would be up to a judge to decide. A court of law on a case-by-case basis seems better than banning by local ordinance. Especially local ordinances banning assault weapons a priori, which go into effect all the time without Reason saying “See liberals, this could happen to your abortion rights!”

      2. Exactly it’s stasi level tactics. It just goes to show you that Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block either by Supreme court directly overruling it or just letting it die via ignoring 50 years of court precedent.

        1. As usual, we see the left confess via accusation

        2. Upholding the Emancipation Proclamation ignored over 75 years of court precedent. So? And Roe V. Wade was a bad decision.

    3. Why should person A be able to sue person B over something done to person C?

      Doesn’t seem very libertarian to me.

      1. Are you asking why should the family of Nicole Brown Simpson be able to sue OJ over his “murder” of their daughter/mother?

        1. Because they lost their daughter/mother. This new law would be the equivalent of empowering me to sue OJ over Nicole’s death.

          1. Sound a lot like a red flag law …

            1. Which I vehemently oppose. What’s your point?

              1. That it sounds a lot like a red flag law.

              2. I think he’s saying, there’s no point in wringing our hands over progressives using this logic because they already do?

                Sorry if that’s not what you meant Geiger.

                1. Precisely.

                2. Just as Joe is threatening to allow anyone to sue a gun manufacturer in the event that a third party uses one of their products illegally.

                  1. See Remington vs Sandy Hook parents for Exhibit A.

          2. This new law would be the equivalent of empowering me to sue OJ over Nicole’s death.

            Are you currently unable to sue OJ over Nicole’s death?

            1. What standing would I have?

              1. I didn’t ask if you had standing. I’m not a judge.

                1. Assuming I could sue, the chances of winning would be zero. How is that supposed to relate to this article?

                  1. You’re the one who said Person A shouldn’t be able to sue Person B over Person C’s crimes. Explain to a judge why you should have standing to make such an argument. I pretty much already said you’re wrong based on precedent.

                    1. If person A was not harmed, then why should they be able to sue? All the counterexamples posed to me were cases where person A could show that they were harmed.

                      Some random activist A suing doctor B over abortion done to stranger C can’t reasonably show that they were harmed by the act, yet this law gives them the power to sue the doctor B.

                      You don’t think that’s a problem?

                    2. All the counterexamples posed to me were cases where person A could show that they were harmed.

                      Shown where?

                    3. In court, where else?

                      Suing over the wrongful death of a family member is one thing, suing a stranger for giving an abortion to a stranger is quite another.

                      If you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say.

                    4. Suing over the wrongful death of a family member is one thing, suing a stranger for giving an abortion to a stranger is quite another.

                      I don’t think/know you believe this. It involves subtlety and nuance that someone advocating “Texas’s abortion laws will be used to take guns.” would wilfully overlook.

      2. Why should a mother whose child was hit by a drunk driver have any legal civil recourse against the driver?

        Why should husband whose wife was killed in a construction accident have any civil legal recourse against a contractor?

        Why should an employer be able sue another employer over poaching a former employee?

        The entire legal system is just full of these un-libertarian claims and causes of action and that is largely because libertarianism is a joke.

        1. In all of your examples person A was harmed by B’s actions. This law gives total strangers who have not been harmed the power to sue.

          1. All of society is harmed by abortion …. all of society has standing.

            1. Ever read Freakonomics? They make a persuasive case that the drop in crime during the Clinton years, 18 years after RvW, was a result of unwanted children being aborted instead of growing up to become criminals.
              If that’s indeed true, then an argument could be made that society benefits from abortion.

              1. An argument can be made that society stands to benefit most when everyone is dead.

                1. That sounds like a tough case to make. If everyone is dead, there is no society. I guess if you are a nihilist or something, you might think non-existence is preferable to existence.

                  1. It is the same case as “abortion leads to less people and therefore, less crime.”

                    1. You still can’t benefit a society that doesn’t exist.

                      I think the lesson here is that absurdly extreme examples are absurd.

                    2. I believe the progressive argument is that abortion leads to fewer poor people, especially racial minorities, thus less crime, which is why Planned Parenthood targets black communities.

                  2. Only the undesirables and others who are a net drain on society as a whole would need to be eliminated.

                    1. Who defines “undesirable”?

                  3. Except that’s not what nihilists think. You really should pick up a philosophy book if you’re going to comment on it, because that’s 101 shit.

                    1. Yeah, I got the wrong word. Sue me.

                2. There wouldn’t be a society, then, since “society” is just a group of individuals.

              2. Banning social media would alleviate much of the extreme political partisanship going on right now.

              3. “They make a persuasive case that the drop in crime during the Clinton years, 18 years after RvW, was a result of unwanted children being aborted instead of growing up to become criminals.”

                One problem. That particular theory doesn’t hold up. The same drop in crime (after similar rises in the crime rate) was also true in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Norway, and France. I know this because I checked the available crime data myself.

                The rise in the crime rate was when “boomers” reached the age when they were most likely to engage in criminal behavior. And they did.

                Roe v Wade might have had some impact in the US, but the primary reason was that the boomers “aged out,” so to speak, from their violent youth. Notice: I am solidly pro-choice.

                1. I did not mean to include France. Sorry.

                  1. Yes, France had those “mostly peaceful” protests in 1968, plus ensurgencies from practitioners of “The Religion of Peace And Compassion” (TM) , so that might skew things some. Also, France is easily forgettable amirite?

              4. Jefferson’s Ghost does make a great point against this too, and I, too am pro-choice. Also, you have to consider that abortions were legal in half of the States before Roe Vs. Wade and abortions still existed even when and where illegal. Wouldn’t the crime have equally gone down in those places and circumstances too?

                Couldn’t the reduction in crime have been attributed to the elimination of Lead in gasoline, paint, and other products? Some have persuasively argued that too. Lead is truly nasty stuff that lowers intelligence and impulse control, permanently stays in the brain, and keeps it’s victims from living independent lives. No one should shed a tear for removing it from human consumption.

                Really, you’d have to control for every possible variable that could be said to be a cause of crime before you could say one way or another.

              5. It damages infrastructure .. under then new understanding of infrastructure

            2. Many people say the same about guns. I think they are wrong, as I’m sure you do. But I also think you are wrong in this case. How is society harmed by abortion? What actual, material loss or harm can a person suing under this law point to? Or should you be able to sue people over making you angry or upset?

              1. Or should you be able to sue people over making you angry or upset?

                Welcome to the world of emotional distress damages. Telling a naughty joke at work can cost you and/or your employer anywhere between $20 – $150K, depending on the jurisdiction — and that is without any proof of a person having received any actual psychological treatment.

                Title VII is a statute that, in practice, is litigated almost entirely upon the basis of people alleging that they sustained psychic harm from the words and/or perceived conduct of other people.

                Your Newtonian conception of legal harm has been burning in a dumpster for almost sixty years at this point.

                1. “They make a persuasive case that the drop in crime during the Clinton years, 18 years after RvW, was a result of unwanted children being aborted instead of growing up to become criminals.”

                  One problem. That particular theory doesn’t hold up. The same drop in crime (after similar rises in the crime rate) was also true in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Norway, and France. I know this because I checked the available crime data myself.

                  The rise in the crime rate was when “boomers” reached the age when they were most likely to engage in criminal behavior. And they did.

                  Roe v Wade might have had some impact in the US, but the primary reason was that the boomers “aged out,” so to speak, from their violent youth. Notice: I am solidly pro-choice.

                  1. Sorry – was supposed to be a reply to Sarcasmic.

                2. Well, I’m sticking with it.

                3. Then as Dieter would say on “Sprokets”: “There’s a fire in der haus! Put it out! Put it out!”

              2. How is society harmed by euthanizing 3-year-olds?

                1. Well, presumably the people who know and care about the particular three-year-olds being euthanized would suffer some real harm.
                  Anyway, I’m not making the argument based on benefits or harm to society, just jumping into the comment stream. The main thing should be the rights of the individual, and that’s what the abortion debate really comes down to. And it mostly rests on axiomatic assumptions about the nature of rights, so no one is going to convince anyone by means of logic.

                  1. The father or the grandparents, if they were against the decision, could argue they’ve suffered harm on account of the mother choosing to abort her child.

        2. I’d even say “un-libertarian”. Many employees sign an NDA. If the employee can void the NDA and go work somewhere else at will then signing the NDA, or contract, is between fraudulent and bad faith. Obviously, not every NDA would be signed fraudulently and no employee should be barred from seeking employment elsewhere because they signed an NDA, but that’s why we have courts and presumption of innocence.

          1. The point is that the “libertarian” argument against this scheme, if applied in a broader context, would invalidate the overwhelming majority of tort, contract, and statutory claims that presently exist in the American legal system.

            Perhaps that is not such a bad thing.

            1. That’s kind of what I’m saying.

              1. It would be nice to see Reason actually explore the results of applying their purported ideological perspectives on a consistent basis. I think that is a big problem with libertarianism, generally. The principled objections to government encroachment are always limited to make libertarianism seem like it is internally consistent and workable while ignoring the reality that if libertarian principles were actually applied in a consistent manner across the board, the result will always be statelessness and anarchy.

                1. You aren’t wrong about that. There can’t be a perfectly libertarian government. I still think that’s the right direction to push things in, though.

                  I do more or less adhere to those libertarian principles, and I won’t object to being labeled some kind of anarchist because you are right. A thorough application of the principles will not allow any kind of coercive state. But I’m not the kind of anarchist who thinks that a stateless society is something that is likely ever to happen. Government is probably inevitable and possibly a necessary evil. But it can never be accomplished in a completely principled and consistent way.

    4. Don’t civil suits require some proof of harm done to the litigant? Some activist shouldn’t have standing. I know the Obama administration liked to use that strategy to have activists sue the government to require more regulation but they shouldn’t really have standing either.

    5. I suppose we could make a law that says Geiger Goldstaedt can’t ever leave his house and let private citizens sue him into oblivion.

      I mean, why not? According to you you still can leave your house but you’d face the consequences for doing so.

      1. I suppose we could make a law that says Geiger Goldstaedt can’t ever leave his house and let private citizens sue him into oblivion.

        Is there a law that says they can’t?

        1. Actually, yes. The Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder for both the Federal and State Governments. Bills of Attainder are where a Legislature acts as a judiciary and takes the Life, Liberty, and Property of a specific individual or class of individuals. Otherwise known as outlawry, it was practiced often in Great Britian and was an act of tyranny that especially rankled the Founders.

          1. The Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder for both the Federal and State Governments.

            The question specifically posed was about private citizens.

            1. And Bills of Attainder target specific private citizens, which is why the Founders prohibited such bills. They, no doubt knew they could fall afoul of them both during the Revolution and even preceeding the Revolution when there were just tax protests.

      2. You don’t have to take the vaccine — but be prepared to live with the consequences of not taking it like losing your job, having your bank account closed, being unable to travel, or have custody of your children.

        Totally not a mandate. Free choice! You are not immune from the consequences of your actions!

    6. Curious. How do you go about proving it was an abortion? Part of discovery you get a 3rd party’s medical records? I mean you can’t sue the person having the abortion, only those that facilitate. So you sue the Uber driver (or whomever) and his lawyer argues there wasn’t even an abortion.

    7. You’re confusing libertarians with Antifa.

  6. Progressives who daydream about using this vigilantism dreamt up out of thin air to go after gun owners are cute, but missing the point. Republicans aren’t doing these things because they believe in the methods, they are doing them to seize power for themselves, and five justices are playing the same game. Their every move has been in response to a democratic reality that would see them out of power if they didn’t seize the judicial branch and the electoral system for their advantage.

    Not since Bush v. Gore has there been any indication that this lunatic movement would be willing to give up power and policy control on “principle.” They have no principles. They don’t even care about abortion except as a wedge issue to get morons to the polls. Which is probably why more cautious conservatives are freaking out about this too.

    1. Republicans aren’t doing these things because they believe in the methods, they are doing them to seize power for themselves

      Unlike progressives, who do believe in the methods.

      1. I haven’t heard any progressive advocate anything other than making the system more democratic.

        We’ve been willing to tolerate minorities electing the worst humans as president, to predictable destruction and chaos. The country’s prestige is ending because of that crap.

        We’re the only ones on the side of democracy and the side of America.

        1. We’ve been willing to tolerate minorities electing the worst humans as president

          What a random dig at Obama …

        2. Really? Did you not catch any news yesterday? I heard a lot of calls for court packing. And that’s certainly not in the name of making the system more democratic.

          1. It absolutely is. The Supreme Court is more conservative than 90% of the country. And there is nothing special about the number 9. If Congress does something in accord with the will of the majority, that’s democratic by definition.

            1. More conservative than 90% of the country? Anything to back that up? Your ass is not a good source for numbers.

            2. Enslaving blacks was democratic.

              1. As were the Nuremberg laws.

              2. While all forms of democracy account for representation differently, enslaving a huge portion of the population can be confidently assessed as undemocratic, among other things.

                1. Why? You just said that doing the will of the majority is by definition democratic. What if the majority wants slavery?

            3. The will of the majority is constrained by the rights of the individual in a truly liberal democracy.

              1. I agree, but it’s a matter of some contention what those rights should consist of.

                For example, I don’t think you should have a right to be careless with your germs during a pandemic, and some people think it’s practically foundational to liberal political science to be permitted to spread deadly virus to as many people as they can get in coughing distance.

                Calm, orderly disagreement will always be with us.

                1. No, there is a broad consensus on what basic human rights are that is codified in the Constitution and in law. Just because one idiot can assert a right doesn’t mean there’s any significant “contention”.

          2. Why not just abolish the senate then?

            Or should we just give California 10 or so more senators to start making it more democratic?

            Quite absurd to have Wyoming with 500k people have 2 senators, same as California with 40 million people. Nothing democratic about favoring land over people.

            1. Why not just abolish all government institutions and just fight it out in the streets?

              I’m game.

              Are you?

              1. Now see there, folks? The AnCap private law enforcement has already begun.

                Well, the law can’t attaint you specifically, but anyone still has a right to self-defense against you and all like you.

            2. Before the 17A Senators were chosen by the states, not popular vote. The Senate was supposed to represent the states and provide a check on the power of the House. That was an important check that is now gone. Why was it important? Well, just take unfunded mandates as an example. Do you think such things would pass through a Senate that represented the state governments? I don’t think so.

              1. There is a reason that arrangement was dispensed with, and it was all the corruption.

                Not that I’m defending the senate as it is. It serves no useful function as far as I can tell and never has.

            3. Why not just abolish the senate then?

              Option A: “Texas kinda sorta banned some abortions by proxy using legal chicanery.”
              Option B: “Texas should be able to ban some abortions by proxy using legal chicanery.”
              Option C: “Bans by proxy will bring about the gunpocalypse.”
              Option D: “Because of bans by proxy, we should get rid of the Senate.”

              Rank in order of sensibility, greatest to least, Go!

              1. None of it is sensible or just or right by any libertarian or Constitutional standard. Stuff like this makes me think that maybe the legendary 33% who stayed out of the Revolution had it right because the Founders’ heirs have made a mess of their inheritance.

            4. The point of the Senate having equal representation by state is because each state has its own legal system. That, not land, is what was originally intended to be equally represented. Otherwise only the legal systems of CA and TX would matter and every other state would have to become one of those two.

            5. Maybe progressives shouldn’t have pushed to amend the constitution so that Senator’s no longer represented the SOVEREIGN STATES.

            6. And then just limit the House to two members per state?

            7. “Quite absurd to have Wyoming with 500k people have 2 senators, same as California with 40 million people. Nothing democratic about favoring land over people.”

              This is where raspberry fails to realize the Senate was established to represent STATES, not PEOPLE. We have a House to represent PEOPLE.

            8. What would be absurd would be allowing the large populous states to dictate to the smaller states without checks and balances like the Senate. If California wants laws that differ from Wyoming’s, they are free to use their state legislature to enact them, rather than impose them on the entire country.

        3. Two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. You’re OK with this because you think of yourself as one of the wolves.

    2. It’s a war motherfucker, and the point is to win the war. If you cannot live with that reality, shit — you’ve already lost the war.

      1. If you think it’s a war on your behalf because of the cultural crumbs they throw you, then I suppose you’re being just as stupid as they need you to be.

        1. Your head would like nice on a pike.

          1. You’ll have to pull it out of his ass first.

            1. Vlad the Impaler had a perfect solution for just that type of situation …

              1. Iirc, Vlad Tepeș would impale the person on a stake up their ass. And they would gradually slide down around the stake. Tony might like that for a bit.

          2. Yes, this will finally be the time that tyranny and mass extermination works out for the good. With Donald Trump as Il Duce, what could go wrong?

          3. Always nice when the fascists expose themselves for everyone to see.

            1. Consider it an in-kind contribution.

            2. Everyone here has known you and Tony were fascist since the first time you posted.

                1. how long have you been waiting to use that one? 😉
                  -nice

            3. As you do, nearly every time you comment, you mean? Though, you are a reprehensible authoritarian, I cannot vouch for state control of the means of production, although given your poor grasp of civics, I wouldn’t put it past you.

    3. I’ve never met an abortion advocate who is able to acknowledge that even one abortion opponent genuinely believes abortion to be murder. Everyone one of them openly professes his need to believe that abortion opponents are nefarious, because there’s a desperate need to avoid discussing the merits of pre-born human beings.

      The weakness of the pro-abortion position is extraordinary.

      1. If abortion is murder, what penalty should be imposed on the woman who terminates her pregnancy? Abortion opponents are squeamish about answering that question.

        1. Why does it matter what the penalty is? Our first step is to gain consensus on whether or not it is murder.

          I find it always hilarious that Pro-Abortion folks want to refer to the killing of an unborn child with clinical and sanitized terms like “the mother shouldn’t be forced to support the baby” but then every single one of them wants to transparently and obviously appeal to emotion with a description of the suffering of the poor mother.

          Suffice it to say that even libertarians recognize that when people have been poorly educated and misled, this should be considered when deciding an appropriate punishment for their actions. I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept that many vulnerable and scared mothers fall under the sway of a cult of death labeled the “Pro-Choice” movement. The primary duty of government, then, is to protect babies from this cult, and help vulnerable mothers understand that sticking spikes into babies’ heads and sucking out their brains.

          1. ^^The primary duty of government, then, is to protect babies from this cult, and help vulnerable mothers understand that sticking spikes into babies’ heads and sucking out their brains is murder.

        2. A libertarian can recognize that abortion is always or usually the unjustified killing of a human being and a serious natural rights infringement without prescribing a legal penalty comparable to other more easily identifiable or malicious forms of homicide. There are many factors to consider, and pro-lifers certainly needn’t adopt a raw retributivist approach to criminal justice, even if it seems to be preferred by conservative ideologues.

          1. If it’s the preplanned killing of a helpless infant, it’s a pretty bad crime. We put people to death for that kind of thing, especially in Texas.

            But as a quarter of all women get an abortion at some point, there’s going to be a long line for the gas chamber.

            The alternative, of course, is to accord with all of human history and not accept that an embryo is the same thing as a person. Even desert-dwelling nomads from ten thousand years ago gave women more rights over their own body than the arrangement these weirdos are trying to impose.

            And it’s based on an ethic they invented out of thin air in the 1970s because “Men should be able to control when women fuck” wasn’t filling the collection plates like it used to.

            1. The earliest extrabiblical Christian text we have, likely written before the completion of the New Testament, is a catechetical manual called the Didache. It is explicitly anti-abortion. There are also ancient and early medieval works that call it murder when a woman ingests poison to kill her fetus. The classical Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortion. I don’t expect you to take these examples as morally authoritative, obviously, but they certainly predate the 1970s. That just strikes me as a way for abortion defenders to wave off philosophical arguments against it as disingenuous and unworthy of consideration. True, abortion was practiced by very inegalitarian Protestants, such as in Puritan New England, but abortifacients were prescribed in a subtle euphemistic way as cures for “blocked menses,” which suggests that abortion was still a moral taboo. In the High Middle Ages, under the influence of Aristotle, the moment of quickening was seen as significant, but medical advances have given us a much clearer picture of the beginnings of human life and a better grasp of what it means in general to be alive. We’ve moved beyond the ancient Greek view of identifiable self-movement.

              Appeals to human history for an ethical position aren’t especially compelling. Before the (largely religiously inspired) abolitionist movement, with the exception of some church fathers, the institution of slavery was seen as a natural condition. Gregory of Nyssa (4th c. AD) gives us perhaps the first direct moral attack on slavery itself, whereas even his contemporaries were mostly content to argue that Christian masters should treat their slaves with kindness as brothers. The idea of same-sex marriage is an absurdity from a historical perspective, but I doubt you feel that constitutes a solid moral argument against the practice. Perhaps you’re arguing a bit too much like a conservative when you say we should take the natural philosophical and moral opinions of history into account.

      2. I don’t think you should have to fund something that you believe is murder. But I also don’t think you have the right to impose the religious concept that conception grants a zygote full human rights and protection under the law, to the point where it forces the woman to be an incubator.

        When a fetus can actual physically function outside of the womb, then this issue gets a lot blurrier, and law may have to be resorted to. And when it comes to very late term abortions, there already are laws.

        I hope that makes you feel a little more at ease.

        1. “When a fetus can actual physically function outside of the womb, then this issue gets a lot blurrier, and law may have to be resorted to. And when it comes to very late term abortions, there already are laws.”

          This strikes me as absurd. Blurrier? Very few people believe that a 2 week old baby isn’t due basic human rights. And indeed, most people would believe that the parent has an obligation to care for that baby or to find someone who can.

          It is only this wishy-washy doublespeak about blurriness that detracts from the country coming to a consensus on this.

          1. Once the viability threshold is crossed, and it’s certainly a moving target pushed back by advances in medical technology, there’s no good reason for a pro-choicers to prefer abortion over eviction, yet most do.

      3. We can tell that abortion opponents don’t really believe that abortion is murder by their behavior. If anti-abortion folks genuinely believed that abortion clinics were murdering babies, then mobs of angry anti-abortionists would besiege the clinics and shut them down. That they merely complain about abortion without taking direct action proves their insincerity.

  7. what’s to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home, in clear violation of SCOTUS precedent

    An actual Constitutional Amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms?

    1. No. No. No. You’re ignoring all the vague emanations and prenumbras surrounding what history has openly revealed to be shoddily composed superprecedent. Follow the rules and you’ll clearly see that suing gun owners and manufacturers again will bring about the gunpocalypse. That’s why you should care about a woman’s right to kill a fetus.

      1. In a forgotten corner of a graveyard, Mike Hihn is trying to claw his way out of a casket.

        1. I hope so. moar bold!

    2. The right to bodily immunity is a right that doesn’t even need to have an amendment.

      1. Who’s bodily has an immunity. There’s a pretty libertarian notion that once you’ve invited someone onto your property you don’t have free will to kill them.

  8. The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties

    You’re a bit late to the party.

    1. These are the symptoms of a dissolving country. Laws are no longer passed for any public purpose, but to trigger opponents. People hate each, rightly, and no longer want to live with one another.

      Why? Because their fundamental conceptions of what life is and should be are drastically different and, in many instances, irreconcilable.

      Couples in the midst of a divorce do many irrational things; destroy each other’s property; sell the family dwelling at a loss; use their children as pawns, etc.

      We are in the vindictive stage and it will get uglier and dirtier until finally both sides decide to let it go, separate permanently, and move on.

      1. “We are in the vindictive stage and it will get uglier and dirtier until finally both sides decide to let it go, separate permanently, and move on.”

        Or they fight it out in a total war, until one or both sides are destroyed.

      2. We are in the vindictive stage and it will get uglier and dirtier until finally both sides decide to let it go, separate permanently, and move on.

        Or murder suicide. Not saying it’s the preferred outcome, but it’s an outcome; especially at the government level.

    2. When has it ever been used?

        1. You mean those laws requiring you to tie a red flag onto lumber that sticks out from your truck bed?

      1. Censoring criticism of the regime.

  9. Are there provisions that the private person can be forced to pay damages if they lose the case in this law? Also and this goes to my thinking, do conservatives fear that if a woman miscarriages that they may be hauled before the courts to answer for that – fuck that shit so hard if some kooky neighbor can make you have to answer to the authorities for a personal tragedy?

    1. The law says if you are sued for the 10k, you can’t counter sue for legal fees if you win. There is no cost to the person suing over an abortion…we already see snitch sites popping up.

      1. Got a cite for that? I see that the state can’t be sued for the private action but by the same ‘caveat’ that makes it legal, there’s no provision immunizing the people bringing suit.

        1. My reading of:

          Notwithstanding any other law, any
          person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks
          declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political
          subdivision, any governmental entity or public official in this
          state, or any person in this state from enforcing any statute,
          ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that
          regulates or restricts abortion or that limits taxpayer funding for
          individuals or entities that perform or promote abortions, in any
          state or federal court, or that represents any litigant seeking
          such relief in any state or federal court, is jointly and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

          Says pretty much the opposite. If you sue, and lose, you are liable for the fees.

          1. It says if you sue to keep the state from enforcing the statute and lose, you have to pay. I don’t read anything in there either way about the party that rats out their neighbor.

    2. The law includes provisions where a losing plaintiff doesn’t have to pay the defendant’s legal fees.

      One of the more bullshit parts.

      1. Again, cite? My inclusion of the actual text of the law pretty openly states that the loser is liable for fees should the prevailing party choose to seek them.

        1. It’s possible the initial poster is just trolling.

          1. Nope, I’m genuinely curious about the law and I feel very strongly that if someone files a suit against someone who miscarriages and makes them relive that tragedy court, that person should lose all of their worldly possessions. I know many people who have lost children to miscarriages and just the thought of someone suing them over it sickens me.

            1. IANAL, but there’s no explicit loser pays. There’s also nothing in the law shielding private parties from liability.

    3. The Volstead Act contained similar provisions urging nuisance lawsuits and snitching in Title II, Section 22. The entire law is being posted in text format at http://www.LIBertrans.us
      Sneaking it in as a wartime measure and leaving out any liability for filing of frivolous lawsuits enabled snitches to get people murdered by officious cops, as in the 1929 Aurora, Colorado case of Mrs. DeKing. The Texas was modeled by God’s Own Prohibitionists after the 1919 Volstead Act that caused the Great Depression. What could go wrong?

  10. Not a fan of the “it’s just a fetus/clump of cells” crowd but this law is really stupid. You bet progs will find a way to use it to go after things they don’t like, such as fossil fuel powered cars, vaping, and gun owners, only they will do that with the media’s blessing.

    1. Both the law and the method will be tossed. Just not on the shadow docket at the 11th hour.

    2. Its a horrible law.

      But the other side provokes shit like this when they boast of using abortion as birth control and pushing the cutoff limit to birth – or even later.

      1. I told my wife when Virginia and was it Massachusets? basically said “fuck it, you can kill it even if you give birth to it” that it was going to provoke a shitty response by conservatives.

    3. Everyone is just a clump of cells.

    4. Yea, because the left has been so hesitant to go after things/people by any means necessary prior to now…

  11. Law was passed in May. Opponents did not file fo an injunction until august. Motion was half assed. Motion failed.

    I can both agree that SCOTUS was correct and the law will not stand.

    1. I can both agree that SCOTUS was correct and the law will not stand.

      I can do you two better. I can agree that SCOTUS was correct, the law will not stand, the law should stand on precedent, and is still terrible. Roe v. Wade was terribly decided and the cases for/against are similarly terrible. One advantage, in this case and for the time being, is that it only applies to TX.

  12. The problem for Mr Root and judge Roberts is no one has standing to demand an injunction because no one has been sued. Also the act itself provides an automatic defense against liability if the abortion provider can show an “undue burden” to performing abortions. Neither the appellate court nor the supreme court has ruled on the merits. They refused to hear a frivolous lawsuit. To date no one can claim harm and abortions are continuing as usual in Texas despite the hyperbolic shrieking claiming otherwise. I don’t fully understand the long term strategy that Texas is pursuing and I’m not endorsing their actions. But Root is demanding radical judicial activism. Roe had a plaintiff with standing and actual defendants. This case has neither.

  13. Appealing to 2A supporters by attempting to equate abortion with gun rights.

    Yes, it’s a legal sleight of hand by the Texas legislature and governor expressly designed to prevent women from getting abortions; and we should always remember that something used against thee can certainly come back to bite me in the ass; however, such a thing [as equating abortion with gun rights] has never occurred to me, and still doesn’t. There is this Amendment in the BOR, for example…

    1. And of course this provides fantastic opportunity for Democrats to cry panic and use it to get out the votes: “See, they really are going to take away your right to an abortion; better get off your asses and vote D or kiss your right goodbye.”

      1. The Ds have already started that in Virginia ahead of the governor election. It was a winning strategy for them in 2013 when McAsshole beat Cuccinelli, whether it will work again, who knows but there seem to be lots of Virginia vagina voters ready to pounce.

        1. The right to kill a baby > a white guy in blackface

          1. Yeah, Ralphy Coonman got a pass on that one by becoming the salad boy for the woke left. Same for AG Herring and his Kurtis Blow costume.

  14. All Texas has to do is simply create a penaltax on anyone who chooses to get an abortion. See? Your choice isn’t being taken away, there’s just this additional tax you have to pay to get one done. Roberts will uphold it.

    Thanks, Obamacare!

    1. Surprised they haven’t thought of taxing abortions first, say like $5000 per abortion, then they could just say “we’re only taxing abortions like you tax cigarettes, not banning them..”

      1. It seems like $10,000 is the magic number of eliminating abortion services.

        So… penaltax abortions and cite John Roberts.

        ATF already does that for certain types of guns.

        1. ATF already does that for certain types of guns.

          Not even guns and many states do, in fact, have outright criminal bans.

          But, OH NOEZ!!!, a ruling on abortion in TX is going to upset the whole apple cart. The same nonsensical abjectly scribbled reasoning that Biden didn’t fuck up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Bush did.

    2. >>Roberts will uphold it.

      you’d think, but Roberts.

  15. So women should be forced to endure nine months of life-disrupting medical conditions against their will, not to mention a lifetime of raising children they didn’t want… but facemasks are tyranny.

    Let’s play a game. I’ll quote someone, and you tell me whether it’s a modern conservative or a feral toddler:

    “Gimme gimme I want it’s mine! All for me none for you!”

    1. So women should be forced to endure nine months of life-disrupting medical conditions against their will, not to mention a lifetime of raising children they didn’t want… but facemasks are tyranny.

      Is the state impregnating them against their will? Is it forbidding adoption and mandating that they raise the children? Are you playing or watching the same game as the rest of us or are you out running around naked in left field shrieking like a retard?

    2. “Gimme gimme”

      Trick question. That’s progspeak.

    3. Given that rape et al are about 4% of abortions and you can go to a doctor after being raped to have the potential pregnancy terminated…what exactly are you going on about?

      They could have not had sex. The same defense, mind you, requiring men to pay child support.

      1. Again, if we’re wildly conflating uteruses and firearms, I don’t see how an abortion is substantially different than an AD. If your gun goes off and hurts or kills someone, I don’t, a priori, see a problem with first, second, or third parties suing you. Don’t want to get sued for an AD? Don’t carry a loaded firearm.

        1. Don’t carry a loaded firearm.

          Maybe better stated as don’t wrecklessly carry a loaded firearm. Not carrying a loaded gun would achieve the same effect but I wouldn’t want to be construed as indicating how women should handle their own uteruses. Maintaining the equivocation; I don’t care how wrecklessly a woman handles her uterus until it ‘goes off’.

          1. A Negligent Discharge could result in a woman getting pregnant that didn’t want to be pregnant.

      2. Well, if my reading of the law is correct, they can have sex, get pregnant and still get an abortion. The only limitation is they need to figure it out within six weeks, and if they don’t, then the abortion provider might get sued by… someone.

    4. so there’ no assumption of risk any more?

    5. So women should be forced to endure nine months of life-disrupting medical conditions against their will, not to mention a lifetime of raising children they didn’t want

      Maybe women who are sexually should consider taking an off-the-shelf pregnancy test every couple of weeks.

      Let’s see you tell me how unreasonable that is.

      1. Sexually active, that is…

      2. Maybe women who are sexually should consider taking an off-the-shelf pregnancy test every couple of weeks.

        Gun owners are constantly reminded by themselves, each other, and everyone around them to know the condition of their firearm and always treat it as if it’s loaded. Every time they pick up a gun. States will criminally prosecute you for carrying a loaded gun without a license.

        Women, OTOH, can’t be bothered to check every 6-8 weeks.

  16. I’m sort of equating the Texas law (We know it’s against the bulk of Constitutional law but we can save some babies while it works its way through the courts.) to the Federal EO (We know it’s against the bulk of Constitutional law but we’re going to do it anyway so that people aren’t evicted while it works its way through the courts.). I also predict a similar outcome once a properly written complaint is filed. This isn’t about conservatives should be scared this will be used against them, this is about showing liberals what their own tactics used against them can look like.

    1. No liberal ever dreamed of a law like this, so what the fuck are you talking about?

      By saving babies you mean forcing them on women who don’t want to raise them. Then presumably offering no public assistance to help in the matter.

      “Saving babies” is an excuse tacked onto a pre-existing motive of controlling women’s sexual behavior in order to keep them out of political power. No ethos in the history of the world treated fetuses as rights-bearing persons until the Christian Right decided it had to de-emphasize the “controlling women” aspect.

      1. “No liberal ever dreamed of a law like this, so what the fuck are you talking about?”

        He just gave a very specific example of Democrats choosing to enact an unconstitutional policy because they thought they could get away with it for a period of time. And then you proceeded to argue against the merits of the law, then he specifically wrote about the process.

        Are you ok?

      2. Tony will eventually see there is no point to arguing with mystics. In 1968, the SDS and Weathermen tried to use violence instead of the ballot and failed. The Libertarian Party formed three years later and wrote non-initiation of force against pregnant women into its platform. The Court copied that less than 2 months after the electoral vote was counted and the LP went from 4 thousand to 4 million votes. That is why national and international socialists struggle to bring their mud-slinging contests before this Libertarian Magazine. Who else would have them?

      3. Non-christian international socialists stopped bullying pregnant women to lower the suicide rate. That irritated the christian national socialists as much as 1927 news accounts claiming mohammedan women in Soviet satrapies had abandoned their burkas and veils. The Pill was illegal to advertise in 1964 in America, and when East Germany followed the 1972 Libertarian lead, God’s Own Prohibitionists went ballistic! Like their conservative Taliban buddies, they haven’t changed a bit even as the population doubled.

    2. >>we can save some babies while it works its way through the courts.

      this pleases me.

      1. Nope. Abortions will continue as usual. No one has attempted to sue any third party or abortion facility. The act specifically indemnifies clinics and I presume third party facilitators if they claim an undue burden to women seeking abortions. Like an individual mandate with no penaltax.

        1. So they enjoy a kind of… ‘qualified immunity’?

    3. This isn’t about conservatives should be scared this will be used against them, this is about showing liberals what their own tactics used against them can look like.

      This is kind of how I see it. It was my first instinct when I read the headline.

      Make no mistake, I’m not for this law, I’m not anti-abortion, and I don’t believe this law is just or constitutional. But when I weigh everything I’m seeing and reading about this, it doesn’t feel like the Conservatards did something that will backfire on them, it feels like the Conservatards came up with a novel legal maneuver that was the culmination of studying decades of progressive contortions.

      1. I honestly have no idea how this will play out. But it does seem that there is a method to the madness.

    4. In fact, wasn’t there a law a few years back that some state passed about abortion facilities needing to be regulated in a certain way that ‘restricted abortion’ and the same thing seemed to be at play there. Years of progressive legal machinations which had been used to stifle and stymie private businesses was now being used on abortion providers, and suddenly everyone cried foul.

  17. Yes, calling the Texas law legal sophistry may be a fair cop, but so is Roe itself. Amending the Constitution by SCOTUS in order to create an absolute right that the elites defend with greater passion than speech, religion, association, equal treatment under law, etc. was always going to undermine respect for our legal institutions and elite opinion. Roe’s constitutional illegimitacy has broken our politics in a a fundamental way and until the pro abortion rights side is willing to give up on it and allow a consensus to be reached on abortion through normal political means this will keep happening.

    1. Roe’s constitutional illegimitacy has broken our politics in a a fundamental way and until the pro abortion rights side is willing to give up on it and allow a consensus to be reached on abortion through normal political means this will keep happening.

      The funny thing is, just like with slavery, there is a perfectly acceptable middle, or moral ground (or several of them) that will almost certainly prevail; but you don’t protect your phoney baloney job by letting people arrive at the right conclusion on their own.

    2. Roe partly repealed the Republican Comstock Laws using the unconstitutional postal monopoly to censor books and gag and threaten doctors and women. God’s Own Prohibitionists correctly see such a defense of individual rights against the initiation of force by mob-manipulated politicians as a general threat to the violence of meddlesome law which they value and libertarians abhor.

  18. leading with Roe is so 100 level class

  19. That legal stunt temporarily succeeded this week when a 5–4 Supreme Court declined an emergency request to block the law from going into effect while a legal challenge plays out in the lower courts.

    Ok, now I’ve read the article. I do admit this is very confusing as to how this law would even work.

    For instance, why did this require a law? Couldn’t abortion providers be sued by anyone already?

    1. The baby would be dead and thus unable to sue mommy dearest.

  20. “The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.”

    Except there’s one key difference: the Constitution could not possibly be more explicit in definining our gun rights and other civil liberties.

    Roe was a tortured ruling that invented a right to abortion that is not found anywhere in the Constitution or its amendments.

    This bill and SCOTUS punting forces leftists to do the one thing they really don’t want to do; show their true colors.

    If they want all their radical changes, do it properly via Constitutional amendment. If that many people and states support destroying the Constitution and the America we know, there’s no saving it, amendment or not.

    Why do they skirt this process? Because amendments require you to be clear and explicit about what you want. You can’t just finagle and abuse the law seeking the desired outcome. You have to go out there, convince people, get signatures, and make it known for all to see exactly what you do or don’t support.

    If you actually go out into the world and ignore the politics and the media, most people are opposed to abortion. They want everyone to take life more seriously. People should practice safe sex, contraceptives should be easily accessible, and psychotic sex-negative feminists shouldn’t be allowed to inflict mass matricide upon the US just because they think that having another human inside of them entitles them to do anything they want to it. Nobody says my body my choice to pregnant women boozing it up, but the moment you want to kill your kid, it’s open season.

    Abortion is inevitable to a certain degree and sometimes it is medically necessary, but we address the issue ass backwards. The default should be that you can’t abort and exceptions are made as needed, not “we believe in a right to life but what is your fetus going to do, stab you? Also your husband is irrelevant, have fun telling him that.”

    1. An honest person would ask: “Should police use service pistols to threaten doctors and pregnant women?” The idea that might makes right is the mob collectivism people fled to America to escape.

  21. Not at all!!

    There is no constitutional right to kill the unborn, Mr. Root!

    1. Prohibiting abortion violates the NAP. The uterus belongs to the woman and the fetus has no right to its use.

      1. If you invite somebody into your home, you forfeit the right to shoot them if they enter.

        1. …So I guess you’ll have to feed them, cloth them, finance them for 9-months and 18-years whether you choose to or not.. /s

          I mean really; you ‘invited’ them in – it’s your fault. /s
          Oh, what; you didn’t actually ‘invite’ them you just left the door open?

    2. There’s no constitutional right to reproduce either. So I guess that settles that. NO MORE SEX for anyone!

      1. Bow down to the collective Gov-Gun POWER of [WE] mobs. For they always know what’s best for EVERYONE…

      2. You fallaciously assume that reproduction is the only purpose of sex, but, yes, that is a very good response to the “no right to abortion in the Constitution” argument.

  22. Women now only have six hours to get pregnant so they can get an abortion. HURRY, GIRLS!

    1. There are no abortion laws in Canada, which is within six hours of most states north of the Mason-Dixiecrat line. They took the Libertarian Party’s lead and rejected girl-bullying all the way in 1976. That was when Quebec refused to help point service pistols at doctors and pregnant women. Search “Canadian Liberals and American Libertarians”

  23. The left has been attempting workarounds to the 2A for as long as I’ve been alive [I’m 36], while the right has mostly been trying to “play fair”.

    We’ve seen where that has led (by “we”, I’m excluding the writers at Reason, as they are as blind as ever).

    Why should conservatives– or, really, any non-leftist– fear the left using tactics they’ve already been using for decades?

    1. “Why should conservatives– or, really, any non-leftist– fear the left using tactics they’ve already been using for decades?”

      Entirely.

      And maybe Damon should explain why he never saw fit to lecture leftists about their actions coming back to bite them in the ass?

      Because, libertarian my ass Damon.

      1. Principles in regards to the rule of law? That these type of laws will not go away long after the culture war has been won or lost? How does this abortion law “beat the left”?

        There are perfectly constitutional and libertarian arguments for being pro-choice on abortion. Especially in the first trimester or so. Just like there are for being pro-life. Especially in the late term. From a constitutional and freedom angle, what is the net benefit of bending the law in this case?

        I’m just not getting the “we should do it because they do” argument in this context.

        I at least understand bending the rules to go after big tech, because they’re massively subverting freedom.

        This is just: let’s support dodgy legal tactics to piss off a bunch of lefties and make a bunch of women miserable.

        Ban public funding for abortions. Fine. This is stupid,

        1. “From a constitutional and freedom angle, what is the net benefit of bending the law in this case?”

          One, I find it rather odd for libertarians to cheer on and defend judicial fiat. I can’t seem to keep up as to when judicial fiat is bad and when it’s good.

          Two, no laws would result in maximal freedom.

        2. I’m not defending the law, so not sure what your point is.

          I’m calling out mendacious bullshit from a guy who never addressed your concerns when they were generated from the left.

          1. When your libertarianism only redounds to one side it’s not very libertarian.

    2. Conservative national socialists are as collectivist and socialist as any communist. Ceausescu’s Romania was proof enough of that–as Nixon paraded the midget dictator onstage. Left and right are code for government religion and mystical religion–variants of the force-initiating collectivism the Libertarian party rejected in 1972. Both socialisms are failing, their parties shrinking compared to the population, otherwise they would not be buying subscriptions to Reason so as to have us watch them flinging ordure at each other.

  24. “The law’s authors know this so they tried to do an end run around the federal courts.”

    No, the law preserves the right to an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.

    Anyway, Reason writers should make up their minds. Are prolifers fanatical extremists, or are they insincere milqutoasts who aren’t hard-core enough to be *really* prolife?

    https://reason.com/2009/06/01/why-is-killing-abortionists-wr/

  25. Damon never seemed to worry all the other times private suits were used to accomplish political ends.

    Maybe because Damon is being entirely disingenuous.

    Fuck off Damon.

  26. Don’t you have to show you were harmed to sue in civil court?

  27. The far ends, left and right, seem obsessed with getting there way rather than a solution to a problem. The Texas abortion law seems a good example of this fact. It will simply give extremists on both ends ideas on how to manipulate laws. This then will do little more than make the other side angry and those of us in the middle will suffer most.

    1. If paramedics arrive at a scene and a person has no heartbeat, and they cannot reestablish a heartbeat, the person is considered dead. If they arrive and either detect a heartbeat or reestablish it, they will continue to perform medical care. The Texas law creates a repeatable, morally defensible method to determine when there is a life worth providing protections.

      1. Funny; And I thought medical care was a decision by the persons own willingness. Kind-of goes hand in hand with *forced* vaccination but at least with *forced* vaccination the other concerned party isn’t actually inside the person.

  28. I usually side with the more conservative leaning commenters on here, but This law sucks.

    The supposed arguments for it are all whataboutisms, they did it first, or about hating lefties more than liking the rule of law. The idea that judges will clearly defend 2A or any pet conservative issue from same methods is especially laughable. Have you noticed just how assy the judiciary has become?

    Also, can’t this social conservative shit wait until we’ve restored some kind of culture war balance again? Can we just overcome the more immediate totalitarian threats before we go lumbering towards the next moral majority satanic panic? Abortion is purely divisive, even between freedom types.

    This law is a stunt, that will likely get eviscerated once SCOTUS grows a pair. And it’s just pumped 1000 volts into radical progressives, when we had them on the ropes for just how retarded this country is getting.

    1. “Also, can’t this social conservative shit wait until we’ve restored some kind of culture war balance again?”

      Without “this social conservative shit”…what balance do you expect to see in a culture war?

      1. We’ve heard Conservative Inc always tell us “This is not the hill to die on”.

        At a certain point, yes, there are hills worth dying on. Always giving up land is not a strategy to fix anything.

        1. This was a good hill

    2. Agreed. It wiped Biden’s worst month off the front page.

      I’ve long theorized that the right will eventually become so stupid it is unable to win elections. I admit I didn’t factor in a willingness to go full-on shithole country with is election rigging project and violent insurrections, but that’s my fault for not having as vivid an imagination as they apparently do.

      Nobody should predict what happens after they seize power undemocratically and go full-on fascism, and woe to the person who underestimates them (everyone underestimated Trump’s awfulness, despite it being pretty obviously awful).

      But an optimist might presume that their first months in power will be filled with overreach such as this, eager as they are to impose laws to soothe their cultural anxieties, old and new, real and imagined, and that a large majority of the country simply won’t tolerate it.

      The question will be then, what does that large majority do about the fact that it can’t control government anymore?

      1. Ironic that you cannot see Democrats doing EXACTLY that, “Nobody should predict what happens after they seize power *UN-Constitutionally* and go full-on fascism”.

        As they have been doing for decades!!! The left breaks the law of Individual Rights COMPULSIVELY and ENDLESSLY. You’d have to be a complete nit-whit to think otherwise.

  29. Gov-Gun POWER.. Gov-Gun POWER…. Gov-Gun POWER….

    The USA will never survive endless fights over who gets the Gov-Gun POWER.

    Both sides need to put down their Gov-Guns usage wish-list and STOP WORSHIPING the Gov-Gods. Fight for INDIVIDUALS Liberty to live their lives without the compulsive POWER of Gov-Guns all around them.

    Stop pretending that the U.S. Constitution is just a suggestion or flipping it on it’s head to read what you want or deny it says what it says or that it is but The People’s Law over the Union Government.

    1st — It says; ‘born’ or ‘naturalized’ to be a citizen of. Fetuses aren’t CITIZENS; It’s NONE OF GOV BUSINESS.
    2nd — It says; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Live it, Love it and let go of the UN-Constitutional POWER of the Gov-Guns over your fellow citizens……………… That POWER (Union) is specifically reserved for National Defense and insisting that State’s don’t violate the Bill of Rights.

    And in general MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! Stop trying to enslave everyone with collective power.

    1. I’m not the smartest tool in the shed, but I’m fairly certain I couldn’t mow down a couple of foreign tourists/their children, then claim it’s not the government’s concern nor business because “they’re not citizens”.

      1. I imagine you’d have some sort of case though if foreign tourists/their children all had their head up your *ss.

        1. “1st — It says; ‘born’ or ‘naturalized’ to be a citizen of. Fetuses aren’t CITIZENS; It’s NONE OF GOV BUSINESS.”

          Your words, not mine. Foreign tourists aren’t citizens, either.

          Don’t get angry at me because you didn’t think your “argument” through.

          1. I probably wasn’t clear enough about it being related to abortion instead of immigration.

  30. Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are. After all, if the Texas scheme actually succeeds in the long run, what’s to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home, in clear violation of SCOTUS precedent, and then placing state officials beyond the reach of federal judicial review by outsourcing the ban’s enforcement to an army of private-sector gun control activists? Most gun shops would probably go bankrupt overnight when faced with the wave of private-sector civil suits that such a state law would unleash. Is that the future that conservatives want?

    Too late. Or did you miss when Cuomo signed just such a law in New York two months ago?

    1. The future religious conservatives want is medieval mohammedan sharia law. If the LP can find noncommunist delegates with cojones enough to restore the original LP birth control plank, we will be well on the way to replacing Christian National Socialism with American Libertarian Freedom in coming elections. Freedom has competed against totalitarianism better than mystical monarchism, if Europe is any example.

  31. Seems like ultra conservative theocratic Republicans in TX, MS and other red states are trying to snatch defeat (of Democrats in next year’s election) from the jaws of almost certain victory.

    The solution is for US Congress to enact a federal statute that legalizes abortions (in all 50 states and DC) performed within 18-24 weeks of gestation, and in cases of rape, incest and the mother’s health.

    After two decades of squandered opportunities (in the Clinton and Obama administrations when Dems also controlled the House and Senate), Nancy Pelosi said this week that she’ll introduce a bill to codify Roe v Wade as the law of the land, and there are likely enough votes in the House (including some Republicans) to approve the bill.

    To get 60 votes in the Senate, Pelosi’s bill will likely need to be
    amended to reduce the gestation time limit down to 22, 20 or 18 weeks. One or more anti abortion Senate Dems (e.g. Bob Casey) may oppose it, but 10-12 pragmatic Republican Senators (especially women) are likely to support the reasonable pro choice measure (that would still allow states to ban most abortions after 24 weeks).

    1. The vast majority of Americans (especially women in suburban swing districts and states) support keeping abortions legal before 24 weeks, and in cases of rape, incest and the mother’s health.

  32. Reason Writer, Indifferent to Goose, Discovers Gander Covered in Sauce, Pants Shitting to Commence Immediately

    1. This libertarian omnivore will eat either one, though I wouldn’t shit my pants at the table. I have a running water toilet and other accoutrements of secular modernity.

  33. Texas wouldn’t have had to do an “end run” around federal law if Roe v. Wade had been decided consistent with the Constitution.

    Once you introduce inconsistencies into a formal system (mathematical, legal, etc.), the entire system unravels.

    Don’t blame Texas, blame the idiot judges who decided it.

    1. Idiot judges who decided it —

      Blackmun – Republican
      Burger – Republican
      Brennan – Republican
      Stewart – Republican
      Powell – Republican
      Douglas – Democrat
      Marshall – Democrat

      …Against…
      Rehnquist – Republican
      White – Democrat

      And I agree with the ruling.
      – Individual Rights to their *own* body is a bigger right than some potential for a life to be created (otherwise we’d all be sex slaves).
      – And most certainly before fetal liability of which there is ZERO chance of creating an individual without being a slave of the state.

      1. Idiot judges who decided it

        Is there a point you are trying to make with that enumeration?

        Individual Rights to their *own* body is a bigger right than some potential for a life to be created (otherwise we’d all be sex slaves).

        Well, and women have the right not to have sex and not to create new life.

        And most certainly before fetal liability of which there is ZERO chance of creating an individual without being a slave of the state.

        A fetus is viable from the moment of conception, it simply isn’t viable outside the womb.

        And I agree with the ruling.

        How nice for you. Unfortunately, you fail to make a coherent argument for why Roe v. Wade should stand, i.e., why the federal government should overrule state law on prohibiting abortions.

        Mind you, I don’t have any religious objections to abortions; I frankly couldn’t care less whether women sleep around and then pay themselves for having the fetuses scraped out of their uteruses (I draw the line at paying for it, though).

        But I have yet to see a coherent argument why, under the US Constitution, states shouldn’t be able to regulate or outlaw the practice. And you are apparently incapable of making such an argument.

        1. – states shouldn’t be able to regulate or outlaw the practice
          That’s a pretty easy one. The same reason slavery became illegal nationally even after they were purchased as slaves. Just because the enslaved might have been or done something to put them into slave ownership; like crossing the ocean from India doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled later to break those chains of slavery.

          1. That’s a pretty easy one. The same reason slavery became illegal nationally even after they were purchased as slaves.

            Slavery was abolished through a constitutional amendment. We don’t have a constitutional amendment on abortion.

            In fact, unlike slavery, where pretty much everybody agreed that it was evil, the country is split on abortion, with about half the country thinking that a fetus doesn’t have rights and the other half thinking that a fetus is entitled to the same rights as all human beings.

            If there is an analogy to slavery, it’s that the pro-abortion people are on the side of dehumanizing millions of humans.

            1. Slavery was abolished through a constitutional amendment.

              And that Amendment states —
              Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States….

              Therefore; If the Pro-Life extremists want to pretend pregnancy is but another person the amendment fits **exactly** that the Women in pursuit of an abortion is in “involuntary servitude” to her pregnancy (or person as Pro-Life extremists pretend).

              1. “the Pro-Life extremists want to pretend pregnancy is but another person”

                Pretend? It is one thing to deny another’s assertion, it is something else to refute it.

                You have done neither. Instead you have accused them of dishonesty without a shred of proof.

                Not exactly a winning form of argumentation.

                Makes you look weak minded and I’ll equipped to handle the subject matter.

              2. Therefore; If the Pro-Life extremists want to pretend pregnancy is but another person the amendment fits **exactly** that the Women in pursuit of an abortion is in “involuntary servitude” to her pregnancy

                Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate the “pregnancy = servitude” equivalence, I don’t see how the “servitude” is involuntary.

                Except in the case of rape, the woman took explicit, voluntary, deliberate steps to produce the pregnancy: she had intercourse and did not use contraception. Furthermore, the woman chose, for the first six weeks of the pregnancy, not to terminate it.

                Obviously, the woman consented to, and repeatedly affirmed, her nine month commitment to host another, vulnerable human being in her womb.

                After she has made and affirmed such a commitment, why should she then be allowed to change her mind when it results in the death of another human being?

                If I’m a hotel owner who decides to kick you out into a snowstorm because I capriciously changed my mind about renting rooms, should I not be held responsible for your resulting death from hypothermia?

                (or person as Pro-Life extremists pretend).

                A fetus with a heartbeat is not a person, but it is a human being.

                1. Of course, at 6 weeks there isn’t a heart…. There are electrical pulses that might one day (not sure if its been proven or not) be a heart beat.

                  More importantly, we as humans do not value life per se.
                  1) We kill enemy combatants all the time – is that murder?
                  2) We have collatoral deaths – is that murder?
                  3) How do we determine it is human? By DNA? – what if it has abnormal DNA – Downs syndrome? – then they don’t count?
                  4) If not by DNA, some other test? Self awareness? I’ve seen a horse and cow hang out together (distant neighbor’s field), they have an obvious bond. OK to kill them? I mean a sentient animal should have more rights than a non-sentient cluster of cells right?

                  Enough of the philosophy.
                  How about rape. If the rapist avoids conviction – does he get visitation rights? If he is poor, can he sue for child support (I mean if he gets the kid every other weekend he’s gonna need money). And if the mother has to work a full time job – can the rapist get primary custody?
                  And yes, it has happened.

                  What about a non-viable fetus – perhaps one the heart has stopped beating. Woman goes into doctor’s office says, I didn’t feel the baby kick this morning – doctor declares the baby is dead, but the women will have to keep in in the body until it comes out naturally. She can sit around for a couple of months crying about it…

                  What about the mis-carraige. CPS gonna come by and quiz you on what happened? What if the CPS worker is suspicious? Get search warrants and go through all your history?

                  OR

                  How about let a woman and her doctor make the decisions until there is a 3rd party. Supreme court strongly suggest that the 3rd party is about when the fetus can live outside the womb. Sounds reasonable to me.

                  1. You’re failing to address the issue. You’re making arguments for why one may permit abortion, not for why SCOTUS should compel every state to legalize abortion.

                    Personally, I have no problem with legally permitting women to kill their fetuses. I also have no problem with states outlawing abortion altogether. Both positions are self-consistent and consistent with the US Constitution and libertarian principles.

                    1. Now you’re denying my argument. Why Slavery was nationally illegal.

                      And to answer your question —
                      “If I’m a hotel owner who decides to kick you out into a snowstorm because I capriciously changed my mind about renting rooms, should I not be held responsible for your resulting death from hypothermia?”

                      No….. Absolutely NOT!!! It’s not ethical to charge people with murder for exercising rights to their own property.

                      As CLEARLY demonstrated by the 3rd Amendment —
                      “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war”

                    2. ..And while I agree with your argument about extended ‘timing’ to preform the abortion. Not every woman is going to know in 6-weeks whether she is pregnant or not.

                      The Roe v Wade ruling really was a well thought out ruling for all parties involved even the interest of the State to preserve life (thus came the concept of ‘viable’). It should just be left alone or even Constitutionalized with the States ability to survive the fetus if that be their desire..

                      If the people want to survive all fetuses into children they need to take the responsibility for such wants instead of just *forcing* others to do what they want them to.

                    3. Now you’re denying my argument. Why Slavery was nationally illegal.

                      Slavery is a condition that is entered into involuntarily and indefinite; that’s what makes a violation of liberty. Pregnancy is a condition that is entered into voluntarily and temporarily.

                      “If I’m a hotel owner who decides to kick you out into a snowstorm because I capriciously changed my mind about renting rooms, should I not be held responsible for your resulting death from hypothermia?”

                      No….. Absolutely NOT!!! It’s not ethical to charge people with murder for exercising rights to their own property.

                      When you rent the property, for the duration of the contract, it’s not your property; if you kick out the renters, you are violating their property rights and, in the example I gave, causing their deaths.

                    4. Easy to defeat.
                      “When you rent the property, for the duration of the contract, it’s not your property”

                      And you have that signed contract of the fetus to women’s womb WHERE?

                      And humorously; we’re talking about property as a valid comparison pretending that one’s own body is not any more sacred than one’s own property.

                    5. … A more accurate comparison would be comparing it to legalized date-rape.
                      1. The Woman ‘invites’ the man into her house.
                      2. The Woman gets him drunk and high.
                      3. Due to Nature; The man is powerful enough to over-force the woman’s will-power and being strung out beyond conceptual acknowledgement can’t really be held as intentionally raping.
                      4. Therefore Pro-Life rules that the Woman must accept the raping of her body because she ‘invited’ him in and got him drunk versus using lethal/legal forces to make him stop.

                      It’s a decent argument in both the abortion and date-rape narrative; but I remain convinced that a death to stop a violation against one’s own will to their own body is an act of Self-Defense and shouldn’t be treated as a murder.

                      And to apply the Roe v Wade ruling. If the State want’s to just remove the drunk from the woman without killing him. The drunk is therefore the State’s interest. As if the State wants to try and survive all ejected fetuses they should stand-by their responsibility in making that decision. It doesn’t give them a right to legalize date-rape.

                    6. And you have that signed contract of the fetus to women’s womb WHERE?

                      Same place they have “signed a contract” for taking responsibility for a child after birth until they become adults.

                      And humorously; we’re talking about property as a valid comparison pretending that one’s own body is not any more sacred than one’s own property.

                      I’m not “pretending” anything. I’m saying that your attempt at equating pro-life positions with slavery and rape makes no logical sense.

                      Nobody is forcing women to be pregnant or carry a child. But if a woman makes that free choice, the state certainly can hold her to those obligations.

                    7. 1 – There is no contract and adoption is still legal.
                      2 – Taking away all options but one is close enough to forcing for me.

                  2. 1 – There is no contract

                    You have a legal obligation to your children after birth even though you never signed a contract. You have legal obligations to children you father and your common law partner even though you never signed a contract. The same principle can apply to pregnancies.

                    2 – Taking away all options but one is close enough to forcing for me.

                    Your option is not to get pregnant (celibacy, contraception, morning after pill) or to have an abortion during the first six weeks. Those are plenty of options.

                    1. And for those who don’t know during the first six weeks gets AUTO-SIGNED up to an invisible contract without their written consent…..

                      Ya; That’s far more dictation than I’m going to accept as Individual Justice.

                2. Neither this law nor the supposed principles behind it make exceptions for rape. Rape babies are babies too.

                  The reasoning behind Roe is that abortion in the first trimester is a woman’s personal right, but at viability the fetus acquires some rights too that can thus be legislated on, and the ambiguous middle can only be regulated in service of the mother’s health. It’s a good framework because it maximizes individual liberty and only permits legislatures to meddle in issues that are clearly in the state’s interest.

                  1. ^THIS — Well said again Tony.

                  2. Neither this law nor the supposed principles behind it make exceptions for rape.

                    Yes, so?

                    The reasoning behind Roe is that abortion in the first trimester is a woman’s personal right, but at viability the fetus acquires some rights too that can thus be legislated on

                    And Texas simply moves the point at which a fetus acquires rights from “viability” to “heartbeat”; some other state might move it to “conception”. Medically and scientifically, there is no reason to prefer any of these points, they are value judgments.

                    Furthermore, even if the fetus has no legal rights, people may still reject abortion as morally wrong, racist, or otherwise objectionable and want to see that reflected in their laws (and why we should probably have many more states than we do).

                    It’s a good framework because it maximizes individual liberty and only permits legislatures to meddle in issues that are clearly in the state’s interest.

                    One of the essential liberties is freedom of association. That includes the freedom to form communities where abortion is illegal. That is why such issues should be decided at the state and local level.

                    “Abortion legal/illegal” is a false dichotomy; the issue at hand is whether abortion law should be mandated at the federal level.

                    1. Actually the judicial ruling at the federal level is an Individual Liberty/Privacy claim; it’s not really legislation per say. But from what I hear Mrs. Pesky is trying to stuff it into law. Frankly it should be addressed by the People’s Law the U.S. Constitution being an Individual Rights thing and all.

                    2. Actually the judicial ruling at the federal level is an Individual Liberty/Privacy claim

                      Yes, and there is no basis for it in the Constitution. That’s why states can restrict it.

                    3. 3rd Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war

                      13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime

                      14th Amendment — All persons born … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens … nor shall any State deprive any person of … liberty … without due process of law.

                      The writing is on the wall but you’re correct; the battle may never actually be won until another Amendment gets passed in it’s direct respect.

                      SCOTUS has interpreted it to read the conclusion of the Roe v Wade decision granting ‘Liberty’ and restricting ‘Involuntary Servitude’ a meaning to include individual rights to pre 21-week abortions.

                      But SCOTUS may change that and until the people amend the people’s law (i.e. The U.S. Constitution) to define that Liberty more specifically SCOTUS gets to play the vagueness rulers.

                    4. …But I’d also like to add; comparatively speaking the SCOTUS actually put a lot of respect in the U.S. Constitution instead of partisan hackers liberals do on the SCOTUS panel. The two descendants of it’s ruling were exactly your argument to a T. That the federal didn’t have the authority for it. Then again; that some argument was used during the ending of slavery for the pro-slavery folks.

                    5. 3rd Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war

                      A womb is not a house and a fetus is not a soldier.

                      13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime

                      Pregnancy clearly isn’t slavery or involuntary servitude in the legal sense. You have attempted to argue that it is analogous, but the fact is that in the 21st century, pregnancy is a voluntary choice, even in the case of rape.

                      14th Amendment — All persons born … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens … nor shall any State deprive any person of … liberty … without due process of law.

                      I don’t see how anybody is being deprived of any liberties. Pregnancy is a voluntary choice and voluntary commitment; once you have made that voluntary commitment, the law can hold you to it.

                      The writing is on the wall but you’re correct; the battle may never actually be won until another Amendment gets passed in it’s direct respect.

                      I doubt such an amendment will ever pass.

                      SCOTUS has interpreted it to read the conclusion of the Roe v Wade decision granting ‘Liberty’ and restricting ‘Involuntary Servitude’ a meaning to include individual rights to pre 21-week abortions.

                      Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on an argument on “involuntary servitude”, it was based on a labored argument to a “right to privacy”.

                    6. “A womb is not a house and a fetus is not a soldier”
                      Now in my book; a person body is /more/ sacred than their house and a full-on-person/soldier is more viable than a 6-week developed egg.

                      Again there is no legal contract.
                      Again taking away all options but one in the book of common-sense is forced.

                    7. …And now there is not only the Roe v Wade interpretation of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights by personal privacy preventing pre-mature abortion bans but *also* a logical argument interpretation of it by ‘involuntary servitude’ as well as in a ‘real property’ respect.

                    8. The two [dissenters] of it’s ruling were exactly your argument to a T. That the federal didn’t have the authority for it. Then again; that some argument was used during the ending of slavery for the pro-slavery folks.

                      You got it backwards: federal supremacy was used for decades to prop up slavery. If states rights had been respected before the civil war, slavery would likely have ended faster and we could have avoided the civil war altogether.

                    9. “A womb is not a house and a fetus is not a soldier”
                      Now in my book; a person body is /more/ sacred than their house and a full-on-person/soldier is more viable than a 6-week developed egg.

                      That’s very nice, but your personal analogies don’t translate into an application of the 3A. The plain language of the 3A talks about soldiers and houses, not about situations that you consider analogous to soldiers and houses.

                      Again there is no legal contract. Again taking away all options but one in the book of common-sense is forced.

                      Correct: after you have made the choice to become pregnant and not terminate the pregnancy within the first six weeks, you are forced to live with the consequence of your choice. It’s even harsher for men: they are condemned to two decades of “servitude” (paying child support) as soon as fertilization happens.

                      logical argument interpretation of it by ‘involuntary servitude’ as well as in a ‘real property’ respect.

                      Half my working life is spent in “servitude” to the state, and the state restricts lots of things I can do with my “real property”. So your supposed principles are meaningless.

                    10. Your major points have been defeated from the multiple angles you tried to present them.

                      You’re now playing ignorant to all arguments presented and asserting your “desired” ‘Correctness’ without any legal or ethical foundation.

                      But I always enjoy your feedback. UR the one who clarified the perfect political governance of the USA for me – Constitutional Union of Republican States. I’m just not going to make silly excuses to enslave others because I don’t think what they do is ‘Correct’. I support their Liberty to the fullest extent possible.

                    11. You’re now playing ignorant to all arguments presented and asserting your “desired” ‘Correctness’ without any legal or ethical foundation.

                      I don’t have a “desired correctness”. As I stated at the beginning, it makes no difference to me whether abortion is legal or not. What I care about is self-determination, freedom of association, and subsidiarity, principles you obviously reject.

                      I’m just not going to make silly excuses to enslave others because I don’t think what they do is ‘Correct’. I support their Liberty to the fullest extent possible.

                      You piss all over principles like self-governance and subsidiarity. The idea that people in Texas might want to organize their society and community according to principles you disagree with is anathema to you. You are a pretend libertarian, a useful idiot for socialists and totalitarians.

                    12. lol…. So it’s , “socialists and totalitarian” to demand that State governments *respects* a Woman’s Individual right to the full authority over her own body?

                      You’re really pushing the loony lines.

      2. The baby is not a potential life it is a life

        1. Baby what baby???? And let me guess an apple seed is an apple tree. Is my sperm a baby too?

          1. No, a gamete is not a baby or a fetus or a human being. Learn some biology.

            1. Ask him when that seed does become a tree…

              1. The seed might become a tree.
                The fetus might become a wonderful contributer to society.
                Might also become a mass murderer.

                Potential of something is not a logical way to judge value.

                1. I didn’t ask about if.

                  I asked when.

                  There is a difference.

                  Like the difference between intellectual dishonesty and plain stupidity.

                  But thanks for playing.

                  1. And, just in case you really are an idiot. Consider the case of any given tree. It started out as a sprouted seedling, and at some point in it’s development became a tree.

                    Tell me when that occurs.

                    1. Well; On the subject of discussion.
                      According to Roe v. Wade any ‘seed’ that isn’t a dead ‘seed’.
                      According to the U.S. Constitution the word ‘born’.

                      Whether people want to believe it or not the Roe v Wade ruling was made by conservatives and it is reflective of having a majorly conservative viewpoint. But it’s one of those wanting to “eat the cake too” episodes. MORE *POWER, MORE, MORE, MORE!!!

                      And that is why I do not align with the Republican party on this issue.

                  2. It is plainly stupid to confuse a haploid gamete (e.g. sperm) with totipotent diploid cells (e.g., fertilized egg, seedling).

                    A haploid gamete is clearly not a human being; it’s not even part of one.

                    Whatever point anybody wanted to make about “sperm” seems to be lost in their shoddy understanding of biology.

                    1. Didn’t you hear? Pro-Life is never going to be happy until they can dictate women to the very second of conception.

                    2. Didn’t you hear? Pro-Life is never going to be happy until they can dictate women to the very second of conception.

                      And if that’s the law Texans want to pass, why shouldn’t they? And if Californians want to legalize late term abortion on demand, why shouldn’t they? The US is a federation of states with different laws and preferences.

                      Furthermore, the father is legally on the hook from the moment of conception, so I don’t understand all this handwringing about the self-determination of the mother.

                    3. It’s federalized because of two obvious things.
                      1 – Because it’s an Individual Rights issue no State Interest.
                      2 – The Fetus isn’t a U.S. Citizen by the Constitution and in that respect (like aliens) are handled by the feds.

                      Frankly; Common-Sense says it’s a PERSONAL/FAMILY matter.
                      It’s really nobodies business but the woman who got pregnant.

                      That day the Gov-Gods took over the people’s reproduction habits too. As-if the Gov-Gods weren’t worshiped enough in this nation.

                    4. It’s federalized because of two obvious things.
                      1 – Because it’s an Individual Rights issue no State Interest.

                      And regulating abortions is an enumerated power in the US Constitution… where?

                      2 – The Fetus isn’t a U.S. Citizen by the Constitution and in that respect (like aliens) are handled by the feds.

                      Aliens are subject to the protections and laws of individual states since they are residents of those states. As such, if you argue (as you seem to) that a fetus should be treated like a non-citizen alien, they would automatically be protected by state law.

                      Frankly; Common-Sense says it’s a PERSONAL/FAMILY matter. It’s really nobodies business but the woman who got pregnant.

                      I know of no political philosophy or legal system that works that way. Neither progressives, nor conservatives, nor libertarians, nor even anarchists hold such an absurd belief. It’s also not relevant, since nobody gives a f*ck about how the woman got pregnant; the issue is whether she should be legally permitted to kill a fetus or not.

                      That day the Gov-Gods took over the people’s reproduction habits too. As-if the Gov-Gods weren’t worshiped enough in this nation.

                      Well, you certainly are “worshiping the Gov-Gods”, rejecting both self-determination and subsidiarity.

                    5. lol… I know of no political philosophy or legal system that works that way. (Government Respecting the people’s Privacy of Family/Personal life).
                      ^Perhaps that’s a problem of tyranny RIGHT THERE.

                      …And as I’ve said before; If the State want’s to survive every ejected fetus and make it a ‘child of the state’ they should have that right and will also need to take responsibility for that stance.

                      Instead of just willy-nilly *forcing* people to do what they want them too.

                      Once the fetus is no longer attached to the woman’s body it then (and only then) can be considered ‘individual’ (maybe that’s why the U.S. Constitution uses words such as ‘born’. Ironically there really isn’t a lot of Women who aren’t doctors who actually ‘kill’ anything. But when push comes to shove; God gave Women the inalienable right to kill there fetus anytime they so choose by suicide. Funny how God himself would give Pregnant Women that authority over reproduction and the [WE] mob of UN-interested people think they can over-ride gods own plan.

        2. Your fingertip is a life as well. Hope it doesn’t need amputation – by your definition that would be murder.

          1. And foreskins and clitorises are human life too, but don’t tell Abrahamic fanatics that either.

          2. Your fingertip is a life as well. Hope it doesn’t need amputation – by your definition that would be murder.

            There are, in fact, laws against medically unnecessary amputation of body parts. There are also laws against female genital mutilation. So why shouldn’t states have the power to pass laws against the medically unnecessary “amputation” of a fetus?

            1. …And to think I thought Libertarians were against MORE laws.

    2. I find Roe v Wade was decided consistent with the constitution and have SCOTUS to back me up.

    3. The Libertarian Party wrote the important clause in Roe before the Supreme Court noticed our electoral vote and copied it into its decision. The 14th Amendment starts with “All persons born”, not all ova fertilized. Relegalization of the birth control Republicans banned during single-party Reconstruction is what changed the sign of the second derivative of the population curve. This was timely, since another communo-fascist nuclear war over lebensraum could have changed it for us if initiation of force were policy instead.

  34. Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are. After all, if the Texas scheme actually succeeds in the long run, what’s to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home

    And why would conservatives or libertarians have a problem with that? States rights and all that. If California wants to be a gun-free, baby killing, drug addled, privacy invading, socialist hellhole let them!

    Damon: your mask is slipping again. You (like most of the Reason staff) are an authoritarian who differs from progressives and socialists only in some policy details.

    1. Because its effectively not about states rights.
      Civil courts typically only need perponderance of the evidence. Your pro 2nd Amendment post might be all that is needed for a neighbor, or some random gun grabbing group to sue you under the “Save the Children from the evils of guns” act.
      Of course, they won’t sue you. They’d probably sue the stores that sell guns, the FFLs that handle transfers, the stores that sell ammo, parts, reloading supplies (good luck getting black powder), or maybe even machine shop supplies. Want to buy a metal lathe? Are you prepared in court to prove that you never intended to use it to build a gun? How does that fly with your posts on ghost guns? Preponderance of the evidence….

      1. our pro 2nd Amendment post might be all that is needed for a neighbor, or some random gun grabbing group to sue you under the “Save the Children from the evils of guns” act.

        You seem to be operating under the delusion that for conservatives to exercise restraint on abortion will somehow induce progressives to exercise restraint on gun laws. That’s not going to happen. The only principle progressives and conservatives can agree on is to peacefully coexist in separate states with radically different laws.

        As I was saying: If California wants to be a gun-free, baby killing, drug addled, privacy invading, socialist hellhole let them!.

        Are you prepared in court to prove that you never intended to use it to build a gun? How does that fly with your posts on ghost guns? Preponderance of the evidence….

        And that’s why I want these things to be handled by state law.

        1. That’s the main fallacy of this article. It’s acting like it’s an escalation of a conflict when the conflicts are separate and have both been in total war for way too long since both of these causes are moral quests.

          It doesn’t matter what the Republicans do on abortion, Democrats aren’t going to let up on gun rights. This isn’t the era where they will compromise on the two issues.

  35. Not to worry. The “ruse” is despicable, but it won’t work on abortion, and it won’t work on anything else. SCOTUS did not bless the ruse. But there is no “writ of erasure.” No temporary measure would remove the chilling effect of S.B. 8 being on the books, and it will remain on the books despite any emergency order against enforcing it.

    There’s an old saying among lawyers: bombs are for showing not throwing. S.B. 8 is a bomb. There may NEVER be a state court suit under it, and yet it may shut down clinics all over the state. But the Federal case seeking declaratory relief will continue to make its way through the Federal courts once the Fifth Circuit’s stay is lifted, which it eventually will be. But if Roe stands, S.B. 8 will fall.

  36. The law doesn’t ban abortion. And the comparison to gun rights is ridiculous. Roe v Wade explicitly states there can be limits on abortion

    2A explicitly states we have the right to hear arms

    1. You are not following. Here is how this same law would work against guns. Brady campaign or other antigun group would sue you. You would hopefully win, but the law would prevent you from collecting attorney fees or damages for the frivolous suit. If you don’t go out of business, they sue you again and repeat because they have more money than you. Then, if they win, the law awards them attorney fees, plus a minimum of $10k in punitive damages per firearm you were sued over. If you bring a lawsuit against this evil fee shifting law, you also cannot recoup attorney fees according to the law. The constitutionality of the underlying thing doesn’t really matter, the goal of the law is to drain the resources of a disfavored group.

      1. They were actually starting to pursue this strategy against manufacturers, which resulted in the Lawful Commerce act.

  37. ‘The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.’ Erm, it is being used, though there is scant coverage. Too local, one supposes. As one of the fuckwit trolls comments, likely thinking it is clever: ‘Sue every gun range into oblivion. Sue someone for shooting into a berm in their backyard, etc. Sue anyone selling ammo.’ This is occurring, often with accusations of, drumroll racism, sexism, and/or homophobia tossed in, because, dipshittery knows no bounds. This said, I don’t think this law in TX was well thought out; I’m not a Texas resident, so, not my place, but I think the law will fall, and it looks to have galvanized the fucktards who live for hollow rhetoric based on emotional appeal.

    1. All that is needed to repeal this usurpation is for the soi-disant Libertarian Party of Texas to add individual rights to protect women and doctors from the violence of ignorant laws: “We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.” Texans who believe women should be bullied can move across the border into Mexico… if the Mexicans will let them in.

  38. So you are saying the danger of this law is that it risks encouraging legal actions that have already occurred?

  39. Must be time for the token libertarian article of the month again. Back to pretending tax rates are more important than personal freedom tomorrow.

    1. Pretending is the right word. When God’s Own Prohibitionists are panhandling donations to add to their federal campaign subsidies, the sales pitch is all about how they suddenly want to lower taxes. This was the entering wedge with which medieval mystical fanatics unable to define rights or graph an exponential function, rode The Don’s coattails while grasping for deadly force to wield against women and doctors.

  40. Contrary to the screeching from the left, this private cause of action strategy doesn’t put the law out of the view of the courts, it just delays adjudication of its constitutionality until someone brings a claim.

    When that claim happens, defendant says the law establishing the cause of action is unconstitutional, and then the (presumably state) court decides the issue of constitutionality, and the ultimate appeal is to SCOTUS. The issue still gets heard, you just can’t smother the state law on the basis of having armies of ACLU and Planned Parenthood attorneys at the ready.

    And there’s a commensurate cost to the state, any private cause of action is going to increase administrative costs to the state courts, and probably entangle lots of state attorneys.

    But it’s apparently worth it to the Texas Legislature. I look forward to not having made up rights like Roe inspiring such avarice towards the federal courts, in the near future. The Democrats can go back to buying their policy preferences in the traditional fashion (bread and circuses).

    1. So, a right to privacy is made up?

      1. A fetus is not “their” person, papers, or effects so yes, any allegation of a constitutional right to privacy in the context of abortion is made up.

        1. That’s right; Every cell of you is property of the State…..
          What a great direction to be going in…. /s

      2. All rights are made up.

        If you mean to ask whether it’s codified in the constitution, the answer is yes, because the court gets to declare what’s codified in the constitution. When it overturns Roe, it no longer will be.

        1. Tony should read the original LP platform. Fascists want men with guns to threaten individual doctors and women with deadly force. The 1972 and 1976 LP platforms stood for individual rights, not superstitious initiation of force.

        2. Ah, the nihilistic horror of the left’s view of the courts. And rights. And existence.

      3. So, a right to privacy is made up?

        What does “privacy” have to do with what medical procedures are licensed to be performed in a state?

        1. The State cancelling a private medical procedure between doctor and patient? Would it not be an invasion of privacy to have the State come to the hospital during a nude checkup and DEMAND pictures?

          1. The State cancelling a private medical procedure between doctor and patient?

            Lots of medical procedures are illegal in the US. Are you saying that the state can ban no medical procedures at all?

            Would it not be an invasion of privacy to have the State come to the hospital during a nude checkup and DEMAND pictures?

            Well, that’s not what pro-life legislation does. Pro-life legislation either outlaws abortion (no pictures required) or, in the Texas case, leaves enforcement to private parties.

            Roe was a bad legal decision and it created a fictitious “right to privacy” that doesn’t exist in the Constitution in this form; and even it didn’t recognize an absolute “right to privacy”. In a sane world, Roe would get overturned and abortion legislation would revert to the states.

          2. Sure, it’s an invasion of privacy. Probably the most basic example of a reasonable search is one required to protect a person’s life.

            Maybe you could get the nude photos part of your stilted hypothetical severed as unconstitutional, while the abortion ban persists. I’d be fine with that.

          3. lol… Dear judge. We need a search warrant to do a cavity search for a missing person. And the boundaries of reason are going down the toilet all in the name of how [WE] get to control those people.

      4. From 1920 to 1933, “dry snoops” was the word for collaborationist snitches brainwashed by the Prohibition Party to assist in entrapment of Americans with new laws making Production and Trade a crime. Violence, including shooting people in the back from ambush, was perfectly legal “extrajudicial killing”. See “The Scandals of Prohibition Enforcement”

    2. *screeching from the left, and this credulous, purportedly libertarian site

    3. Agreed. Relying on Roe as the source of a supposed constitutional right establishes the supreme court not only as an arbiter of constitutional rights but as an advocate for a progressive conception of them. Progressives were all taught that the court was an ally in securing individual rights, that this was perhaps its most important function.

      But a survey of court rulings from history shows the court to be a deeply conservative aspect of our system, as you might expect from a body of unelected, permanent gerontocrats. The Warren court was an aberration, one that resulted in progressives having far too much complacency and conservatives engaging in far too much furious backlash.

      Congress should be made more representative and then get off its lazy ass and make actual laws that secure these rights.

      1. What’s that; A progressive conception of Governments Rights over Others?? OR MORE LIKE — “Progressives were all taught that the court was an ally in securing individual *ENTITLEMENT* at others expense.”

        You sure do love to spin things on their head.
        You certainly don’t lack any deception skills.
        Or probably more than likely you’re just a Nazi Parrot of deceit.

      2. I’m torn.

        On one hand, I’d love for your masters to agree with you, and the case that overturns Wickard to be a federal abortion rights law shitshow predicated on the “commerce power.”

        On the other hand, it’s not good for the country if the left throws a tantrum and destroys the guardrails of our system to try passing major legislation with a bare majority, which is the only way something like that is getting through a foreseeable Congress.

    4. When Republicans bully girls it’s not really fascism. When libertarians and the Supreme Court interfere with lynch mobs girl-bullying, THAT’s communism, right?

      1. So the point of your ranting is to both-sides me and deny the libertarian case against abortion? Tedious.

        But I’ll throw you a bone: I’m pro-bullying when it’s to save lives.

        While I don’t contest your right to be blazed out of your mind here, it does make you less coherent.

        1. “I’m pro-bullying when it’s to save lives”

          And far too many on the right do not see that slogan as the master slogan for National Socialism going on. But… But… Poverty kills more people than ever so; Bully those people into providing for them against their consent. It’s all in the name of ‘common good’ of saving people (the poor).

          Bring on the Universal Basic Income so nobody has to suffer/die needlessly..

  41. To all those defending this law, tell me if you’ll be equally okay when blue states start passing laws allowing any random stranger to sue anyone they see in public who is not wearing a mask, for at least $10,000 per violation.

    Because I guarantee you, it will happen.

    1. If a State constitution has a provision that empowers state authorities to require burkas/face masks, it should and probably would be removed once claimed. In the absence of such a provision, such a law would be unconstitutional.

      Roe is the only thing making Texas’s law “unconstitutional.” Roe is nonsense on its face.

  42. Progressives love baby murder almost as much as they hate Trump.

    1. Trump spoke of his babies as future sex objects.

      1. Wow. You are a real winner. It’s a sure bet your mother regrets giving birth to you.

    2. The Prohibition Party was the first to demand a pro-coathanger amendment to the Constitution. Considering its earlier amendments–income tax and national prohibition–helped America into the Crash and Great Depression, why not let them dictate policy again?

    3. So step up and pass a law requiring that all ejected fetuses be survived if possible and pay the tax required to support that decision.

      It’s funny how you’ve got this closed minded locked-in idea that not being able to dictate Women’s authority over their body rights is automatically a synonym for ‘baby murder’.

      Oh yeah and then there’s this —
      Baby definition is – an extremely young child.
      Child definition is – A person between birth and puberty.

      But don’t let dramatization of incorrect wording get in anyone’s way of getting more control of the Gov-Gun-Powers…..

  43. I am a model girl and expert and I am available to help you get together and have the most fun. If you feel the need to have all the fun and am in the mood to, you can bring me along. I am a teacher and have a blonde figure that is likely to be 34c-30-32.
    https://www.caina.in/

  44. The Libertarian platform of 1972 demanded individual rights for women while the GOP endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. Republican president Nignew’s party—trapped between the Resurrection of Prohibition Party sentiment among Dixiecrats, the Methodist White Terror and the Supreme Court’s Libertarian Roe v Wade decision—turned against the ERA and copied the Prohibition Party’s platform demand for a pro-coathanger abortion amendment. Nixon and Ford gamely endorsed Communist Romania’s reversion to girl-bullying National Socialist policies. The Texas LP should lead the State back to individual rights by reinstating the original Libertarian Party birth control plank.

  45. I made more than $700 each day utilizing my portable in low maintenance. I as of late got my fifth check of $19,632 and all I was doing is to reorder work on the web name as tanning lotions. this homework makes me ready to produce more money every day easily.FBI easy to manage job and ordinary pay from this are simply brilliant. Here is the thing I’m doing.

  46. Being 50 I was the first gen to grow up thinking that abortion as a form of birth control was normal after all the propaganda we were fed. And if you disagreed you were a right wing nut case. It wasn’t until the last few years i realized the evil of it. It would be similiar to being born in Germany in 1920 and growing up with all the nazi and becoming one, they thought that was normal train of thought and didn’t know other. Eventually they learned hw evil they were. Maybe time for baby killers and believers in eugenics to know how evil they are?

  47. At times, there might be issues you would encounter during the verification of apple id. Some prevalent reasons for the same and their solutions are mentioned in this post. We hope these Methods will help you to fix the Apple Id Verification Failed issue. In case, the issue exists, try to connect with our technical support team for immediate resolution.

  48. Is it an unconstitutional stunt or is it a legal menace?
    It it’s both then you know what’s coming? Insurance against lawsuits. Insurance companies will offer coverage in case someone sues you for exercising some right or another in public.

    I remember reading about something like that in The Adventures of the Stainless Steel Rat.

  49. Going through movie loving app
    MovieBox Pro app

  50. This law will likely be overturned at the state level because the qualification for “standing” is so broad that it conflicts with the standard set in the Texas Constitution as well as conflicting with case law in rulings on standing issues. In fact the ONLY people the law claims do not have standing are government officials and men who impregnate women in the course of a crime.

    It is ridiculous.

  51. Abortion isn’t a constitutional right, and any comparison that this law could be used to restrict the 2nd amendment is hogwash. Abortion is evil, it’s even more evil when a person just can’t get around to killing the fetus until the heart beat forms. They’d be content if you could abort after birth if they could.

Please to post comments