Abortion

The Texas Abortion Ban Is a Roadmap to Privatized Oppression

Even justices who take a dim view of Roe v. Wade recognize the law’s chilling implications.

|

Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone this week told the Supreme Court that people who object to his state's abortion ban would have a chance to challenge it—eventually. But as Justice Elena Kagan noted, the process that Stone had in mind could take "many years," during which time the law, S.B. 8, would continue to have a severe "chilling effect" on a right the Court has long said the Constitution guarantees.

That prospect clearly troubled the justices, including several who take a dim view of the Court's abortion precedents, because they recognized the broader implications. The strategy embodied by S.B. 8, which is designed not only to evade pre-enforcement review by federal courts but also to delay any definitive ruling on the law's constitutionality by state courts, can easily be adapted to attack any right that state legislators view as dangerous or inconvenient.

S.B. 8, which took effect on September 1, prohibits abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens about six weeks into a pregnancy. Instead of charging state officials with enforcing its terms, the law authorizes "any person" to sue "any person" who performs or facilitates a forbidden abortion. It promises plaintiffs, who need not claim any personal injury, at least $10,000 in "statutory damages" per abortion if they win, plus reimbursement of their legal expenses.

Although S.B. 8 is plainly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about constitutional limits on abortion laws, its novel enforcement mechanism means that anyone who tries to make that argument in federal court will have a hard time identifying appropriate defendants. The Court grappled with that puzzle on Monday, when it heard oral arguments in two cases challenging S.B. 8.

Stone repeatedly noted that people who face S.B. 8 lawsuits can defend themselves by arguing that the law is unconstitutional. But even if a state judge agreed, the ruling would apply only to that particular case.

Under S.B. 8, such a decision would not stop lawsuits against other defendants. It would not even stop lawsuits against the same defendant, who still could be sued in any of the state's 254 counties. And every one of those lawsuits would be a financial drain, since S.B. 8 does not allow prevailing defendants to recover attorney fees.

If a losing S.B. 8 plaintiff appealed, the case could ultimately generate a ruling with a broader impact. But for precisely that reason, anyone who supports the law would be disinclined to pursue an appeal.

The success of S.B. 8 does not depend on actually winning anti-abortion lawsuits, or even on filing them. The mere threat of expensive, unending litigation has been enough to dramatically curtail abortion access in Texas, where the number of abortions performed in September was down by 50 percent compared to the same month in 2020.

That reality explains why the Firearms Policy Coalition, which has no particular interest in defending abortion rights, filed a Supreme Court brief in support of allowing pre-enforcement challenges to S.B. 8. "Laws that deter or chill the exercise of constitutional rights violate those rights," it said, warning that state legislators could use similar laws to undermine Second Amendment rights, religious liberty, or freedom of speech.

That fear was echoed by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who are hardly fans of Roe v. Wade. If anyone who "sells an AR-15" or who "declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage" were "liable for a million dollars to any citizen," Kavanaugh wondered, would federal courts still be powerless to intervene before such lawsuits make their way through state courts?

Stone conceded that his argument against blocking enforcement of S.B. 8 did not hinge on the nature of the constitutional right or the size of the bounty. Although he gets points for consistency, this invitation to privatized oppression should give pause to all Americans, no matter how they feel about abortion.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: A Scathing Rejection of the Case Against Four Drug Companies Highlights Misconceptions About the 'Opioid Crisis'

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. Even justices who take a dim view of Roe v Wade? Which ones would those be?

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

      Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP1

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

        Try now……………… READ MORE

  2. Abortion isn’t a constitutional right, is it?

    1. Its hidden in the penumbra. Now stand in line for your mandatory shot or be fired with no unemployment.

  3. It's not an abortion ban, it's a limit on abortions. Reasonable people may disagree about whether that limit is draconian, but the Roe V. Wade decision explicitly said that women DO NOT have an unlimited right to abortion.

    Now if we could see this shape-charge energy directed towards vaccine mandates and lockdowns.

    1. The Left seems to argue that abortion is the only unlimited right.

      1. The left will argue that whatever they want is constitutional, or that the constitution doesn’t matter. It’s a tool of convenience for them, not law. That how they treat everything.

    2. Do you mean inalienable right?

      The constitution doesn’t mention unlimited rights and the two don’t mean the same thing.

  4. Facebook is a roadmap to privatized oppression.

  5. Election live updates: Early results reveal tough night for Seattle progressives

    Now, this is Seattle, so by "progressive", that translates to "Card-carrying revolutionary identitarian race Marxists who had to spend several months of the election lead-up deleting tweets about killing police officers, burning down homes, small business and properties, and threatening any constituents who would fail to get on board with the pogrom as counter-revolutionary capitalist roaders who would meet the business end of their bayonet"

    What we're left with is the softer, more cuddly Bernie Sanders Marxists.

    Except one. And I'm not sure how shocked I am:

    So far, it’s looking like a tough night for Seattle progressives as centrist and business-backed candidates in three marquee city races surged to big Election Night leads.

    In the race for Seattle Mayor, former city council president Bruce Harrell was taking 65% of the vote over current council president M. Lorena González.

    Republican Ann Davison was leading with 58% of the vote in the race for City Attorney versus abolitionist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy.

    This was probably a tough choice for Seattle. Literal bomb-thrower and threat-lobbing 11th hour tweet-deleting nutcase, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy who explicitly said she would stop prosecuting anyone for anything in a city littered with homeless criminals, thieves, human waste, rats, needles (from vaccines!) and mountains of garbage... or a... Republican.

  6. The genie is out of the bottle, and it cannot be put back in. This legal tactic will be used over and over. I guarantee you that some aspiring progressive libtard lawyer is already writing the gun grabber version of SB-8.

    Why not go down the path Justice Thomas appeared to allude to when he asked questions on 'private attorney's general' during oral arguments? That path offers a way through this mess (not out of this mess).

    You cannot 'un know' knowledge that you acquired. Sullum glosses over this point. There is a new legal reality now.

    1. Roe vs Wade will collapse when SCOTUS is forced to recognize the science and logic that the unborn are persons.

      Then all that is left is the inalienable right to life of the baby.

      1. Communism will Take-Over when SCOTUS is forced to recognize the science and logic that people are persons.

        Because everyone has an inalienable right to life ESPECIALLY when that right RELIES upon someone else's servitude....

        Mind your own D*MN BUSINESS ROB.

        1. Helpless innocent vulnerable people sometimes need others to stand up for their rights.

          You wouldn’t recognize this.

          1. You obviously wouldn't recognize needing to stand up for women's rights to their own bodies. That's a given. Do you hate women so much you think they should be FORCED to reproduce to satisfy your own illogical religion?

            + 30% of a person isn't a "person". You nor ALL the medical attention in the ENTIRE WORLD can make it an individual person. You have no excuse to lobby for a Pre Roe v Wade restriction except to ENSLAVE Women.

            1. The inalienable right to life isn’t pro rated by age.

              1. And women do not lose their right to bodily autonomy because there is an unwelcome guest in their uterus.

                1. That baby didn’t ask the woman to put It there, but she did and the baby is a person with the inalienable right to life.

                  It’s not rocket science. Women have no rational excuse for having sex then considering the result to be unwanted.

                  Their irrational behaviour doesn’t supersede the right to life of the baby.

                  1. "Yes doctor. Please sow that 'baby' into my womb."
                    You don't even realize how indoctrinated you've been.

                  2. The woman did not "put it there". But you know that, and are intentionally talking out of your ass.

                  3. the baby is a person with the inalienable right to life.

                    There you go again, making that naked assertion without attempting to make an argument for it.

                  4. Their irrational behaviour doesn’t supersede the right to life of the baby.

                    The needs of the fetus do not supersede the right to self-ownership of the woman.

                  5. Women have no rational excuse for having sex then considering the result to be unwanted.

                    It doesn't matter what her intentions might have been when she was having sex. The only matter is whether the fetus is welcome in her body at the time she chooses to have it removed.

                    1. You are demonstrating “Classic "begging the question".”

                      As I have proven with my argument below,

                      Unborn unique human DNA = individual = person

                      All persons have the inalienable right to life.

                      It doesn’t matter if the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore.

                    2. The only proving you've done is proving you use....

                      Gaslighting and Down right Lies to push your desired use of Tyrannical Gov-Gun-Forces against those people.

                      Abortion = Making that item INDIVIDUAL... How retarded can you be?
                      "It doesn’t matter if the woman doesn’t want to" ..... get raped?
                      "the inalienable right of life" from that rape/semen.
                      And all transplanted organs with unique human DNA - those give Rob the inalienable right to DICTATE those people too.
                      .... blah, blah, blah....

                      MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS you IGNORANT LYING TYRANT.

                    3. Unborn unique human DNA = individual = person

                      Says you. You never present an argument for that.

                    4. The definitions of the words that I provided on my comment November.3.2021 at 6:51
                      Demonstrate that equation.

                    5. They demonstrate your opinion.

                    6. They are the evidence of my argument that you are either too bigoted to consider or simply unable to refute.

                    7. The Nazi called me a bigot. I'm so hurt.

                    8. You can neither refute what you deny nor prove what you claim.

              2. The very process of human reproduction is "pro rated by age" you imbecile.

                1. Lots of things are age dependent.

                  The inalienable right to life isn’t.

                  1. One of the MANY points you ignore....
                    A right to life isn't an *ENTITLEMENT* to other people's body.

                    1. It is in the case of pregnancy, the symbiotic relationship initiated by the woman and necessary for the baby’s survival.

                    2. Rob exactly, "Yes it is an ENTITLEMENT"......
                      That's where we disagree... You're no different than a Socialist thinker.

                    3. Sure the baby is entitled to life, just like you and me.

                  2. Alrighty then Rob; And as soon as I need blood, an organ donation, a house, food, or anything to survive; I'll be sure to FORCE you to donate it for my own survival at your bodies expense.

                    I'm ENTITLED to your body! Yet; I'd place a $20 bet when the time came for YOU to give up your body rights - you'd prove to be 100% a complete hypocrite.

                    1. Unlike the woman who chose to have sex, conceiving the baby with the right to life, I am not responsible for your wasted existence at all.

                    2. At the time she had sex, there was no "baby" for her to enter any agreement with.

                    3. After having sex there was.

                      Apparently you recognize what conception is.

    2. There is a way to put it back in the bottle: Stomp out the legal concept behind SB-8 with extreme prejudice and threaten to disbar anyone who brings a suit under it or any similar bill. Courts are places for real cases and controversies by affected parties with standing and in a right and just world statute would not be able to cut out standing for third parties from whole cloth. Unfortunately for us all, that boat appears to have already sailed and the legal precedent underlying the law isn't particularly new. Legislatures have been writing standing for unrelated parties into laws for years.

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027130

      At this point what's probably needed is a constitutional amendment carving in stone the rules for standing in lawsuits. That's the only way I can think of to really nail this problem dead, and that's about as likely as hell freezing over so maybe the best strategy is just to bribe your favorite congress critters with wheelbarrows full of cash so they specifically write you out of whatever laws they are making.

      1. in a right and just world statute would not be able to cut out standing for third parties from whole cloth

        So, the courts can cut out legislative or executive mandates like desegregation, abortion, insurance taxes and gay marriage out of whole cloth, but the legislatures are forbidden from defining standing?

        At this point what's probably needed is a constitutional amendment

        Yes.

        that's about as likely as hell freezing over

        At some point, the people have to be convinced to take back the power the Constitution gives them and replace the proper limits on the federal government including the proper separation of powers. If they can't, we become Western Russia.

        1. So, the courts can cut out legislative or executive mandates like desegregation, abortion, insurance taxes and gay marriage out of whole cloth, but the legislatures are forbidden from defining standing?

          Two wrongs don't make a right.

      2. that boat appears to have already sailed and the legal precedent underlying the law isn't particularly new.

        In some ways, it dates back to the 1912 election. Where all three candidates (Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt) had very different ideas on how to deal with trusts. Taft's idea that the judicial branch - not the executive branch - should have primary responsibility for enforcing anti-trust legislation kind of presages this.

        Least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  7. It isn’t oppression when someone’s inalienable right to life interferes with your irresponsible desires.

    1. Ya! If you F-EN SLAVES could just be responsible for the rest of us nobodies inalienable right to life will be infringed upon. /s

      FORCE them to reproduce....

      1. Nobody forced anyone to put the baby in the woman. It was her choice of behaviour.

        Once there people have the inalienable right to life.

        Helpless innocent vulnerable people sometimes need others to stand up for their rights.

        You wouldn’t recognize this.

        1. Gaslighting defined --- "the baby"
          UR so full of propaganda B.S. your eyes are turning brown.

        2. Classic "begging the question".

        3. It appears that you both aren’t recognizing that the unborn are persons.

          Let me help you with logic and science.

          Definition of person

          “the object of legal rights. There are two kinds of legal person: human beings and artificial persons such as corporations.”

          Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

          Definition of human being

          “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.”

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being

          Definition of DNA fingerprinting

          “ a technique used especially for identification (as for forensic purposes) by extracting and identifying the base-pair pattern in an individual's DNA”

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/DNA%20fingerprinting

          This easy to follow string of definitions clearly demonstrate how the advent of DNA fingerprinting science science Roe vs Wade proves that the unborn are persons.

          Unborn unique human DNA = individual = person

          How could you refuse to recognize that this proves the unborn are persons?

          1. PERSON definition - Human, ********Individual**********.

            When whatever it is, is INDIVIDUAL, it will then be a person and not a second before that so stop gaslighting for the POWER of GOV-GUN-FORCE with deception and manipulation to satisfy your own religious entity. Keep your religion to yourself; no one else will stop you because most of us know how to keep our BIG NOSE out of other people's PERSONAL LIFE.

            Even if you want to chunk out that very important part of a person being INDIVIDUAL you still cannot say it's anymore than 30% of a person. If I get 60% of myself cut-off in a car accident do you think you have the POWER to FORCE me to be survived by stuffing my brain in some dead body????? Or do you think that should be up to a will or FAMILY to decide upon?

            1. In other words; You're being a nasty little tyrant...............

              1. The unique DNA proves individuality.

                Physical separation does not define individuality.

                1. Actually propaganda machine; Physical separation is EXACTLY what defines individuality. Your contradictory use of words is only the beginning of your contradictory argument. Your blatant and purposeful ignorance fills in the rest.

                  1. Cite required fuckwit.

                    Symbiosis involves individuals, not separated.

                    1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
                      Individual definition --
                      existing as an indivisible whole
                      existing as a distinct entity : separate
                      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual

                    2. The baby’s DNA is separate from the woman’s.

                      The baby will separate from the mother alive at birth.

                      We are discussing the premature separation of abortion that kills the baby.

                      In a symbiotic relationship separate individuals are not physically separated.

                    3. And no-one is going to argue with you "at birth".........
                      Your premature arguing is just another topping on your cake of manipulation.

                    4. But by all means --- Shove that Transplanted organ DNA example far, far, far away from your cake of deception under a big fat layer of ignorance...

              2. Symbiosis is another example of two distinct individuals living together.

                Pregnancy is a symbiosis.

                1. And unless you are part of the symbiosis IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

                  1. When murderers attack the helpless, innocent and vulnerable it is EVERYONES responsibility in civilization to stand up for them and oppose the murderers.

                    1. You can't "murder" 30% of any living thing. There isn't enough there to be anything but dead already. And when it is INSIDE a FULL FLEDGED Individual Body it has no right-of-way right to grow there.

                      Those are the FACTS of the matter. But you have stubbornly chosen to be a little tyrant instead using an excuse that carries no water.

                    2. There is nothing innocent and vulnerable about squatters. Especially if that 'squat' is inside a Woman's own body against her consent? You just as well pretend rape-ers are innocent and vulnerable. Oh yeah Rob; sure, sure; let's just pretend she asked for it for wearing that short skirt.

                      The juice isn't worth the squeeze --- ESPECIALLY when there is NO juice at all since YOU nor anyone else can turn that thing you like to *pretend* is a 'baby' into an ACTUAL baby.

                    3. The symbiotic arrangement was initiated by the woman.

                      The inalienable right to life means nobody can simply choose to murder another person.

                      I have demonstrated that the baby is a person. All persons regardless of their age have the right to life.

                      You can’t refute this logic.

                    4. Hey Rob! I'm gonna die unless you feed me, breath for me, share your internal organs with me.... Therefore; It's EVERYONE'S responsibility to pull out the Gov-Guns and FORCE YOU to supply me ALL those things.

                      ....And back to the beginning of the discussion we go; because your blatant ignorance is chasing it's tail...

                    5. If my actions put you in that position, like a woman having sex conceiving a baby, then I would be responsible to keep you alive at least until you could live on your own, just like a pregnant woman is.

                    6. "It's not my fault you didn't barricade your house well enough for me to get in....." My trespassing is YOUR fault! Now since I'm a homeless bum and YOU didn't properly STOP me from being there - you now are ENSLAVED to care for me until I get a job...

                      Right.... That's NOT how Individual Rights work.

                    7. You can’t kill trespassers.

                    8. "You can’t kill trespassers."
                      WRONG again... You most certainly can and if that trespasser is violating your BODY - 100% of the time it is self-defense.

                    9. Cite required again fuckwit.

                      Nowhere in the US can you use deadly force for the minor offence of trespassing.

                      It’s obvious why you post anonymously.

                    10. You can’t refute this logic.

                      You offer no logic to refute; just a repeated naked assertion.

                    11. Nowhere in the US can you use deadly force for the minor offence of trespassing.

                      EVERYfuckingWHERE you may use deadly force against someone invading your body. If you have reason to believe a trespasser is a threat to you, you certainly may use deadly force to repel him (details vary by state). If a trespasser refuses to leave your property, the police may and will escalate to deadly force to remove him.

                    12. Pregnancy is how humans reproduce.

                      It is not a threat.

                    13. The definitions of the words that I provided on my comment November.3.2021 at 6:51
                      Demonstrate the equation

                      Unborn unique human DNA = individual = person

                      That’s an argument that you can’t refute.

                    14. It's not an argument. It's just an assertion.

                    15. "It is not a threat."

                      Forced pregnancy is a threat.

                    16. Wrong.

                      I made a statement and supported it with the definitions of the words I used as evidence.

                      That’s an argument.

                      Apparently one that you are either too bigoted to consider or simply can’t refute.

                    17. Pregnancy is no threat.

                      When a woman chooses to have sex, it cannot be said she was forced to become pregnant.

    2. You never provide any argument as to why you think that the fetus is a baby or a person or a life. If that is what you think then surely you would have a reasonable argument to support your opinion but you never present one. You just make the same repetitive comments every time the abortion issue is raised.

      You just make a statement that the fetus is a baby or a life. What is the point of making such statements? Why do you do it? Why are you even on this forum? People do not change their views on abortion unless there is a good argument to do so and you never provide any argument good or bad. You simply repeat a mantra as if you are trying to convince yourself that the fetus is a baby.

      There can be no other reason why you appear in these discussions than the need to convince yourself. You certainly cannot convince anyone else unless you begin to present an argument. How stupid do you think people are that they would change their views based on a mantra rather than a reasoned argument.

      You are abusing these forums because you are using them to try and convince yourself of something. These forums are for people who want to present arguments and reasons for their views not for those who are so insecure in their view that they must repeat it over and over again even though it has no reasoned substance.

      1. See above

        The same question applies to you.

      2. What? That’s all you’re good for? Pathetic.

  8. Privatized oppression vs Public Oppression. That’s moving on the libertarian direction, no?

    I wonder that so many are fighting for the prevention of access to the courts. So many of the ways the government oppresses us are based on how very few of we the people have standing. Is this how our republic ends, on a few elites individuals and organizations have standing in courts to object to state actions? QI and standing prevent holding government to account.

    Maybe this is worthy cost, to have more people able to access the awesome power of the courts, which a routinely used to oppress us.

  9. So private law enforcement is now bad?

    Interesting.

    1. No. It's the 'law' that is bad.

  10. TRUE: SUPPRESSING STATE-COURT SB8 LITIGATION CAN BE DONE NOW, BUT ...

    RE: “Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone this week told the Supreme Court that people who object to his state's abortion ban would have a chance to challenge it—eventually. But as Justice Elena Kagan noted, the process that Stone had in mind could take "many years," during which time the law, S.B. 8, would continue to have a severe "chilling effect" on a right the Court has long said the Constitution guarantees.”

    Eventually?

    There are 14 pre-enforcement challenges pending in state court right now, and one of them already has a motion for summary judgment by Planned Parenthood on file. Plus, there are three SB8 cases pending before Texas district court against Abortion Doctor Alan Braid, MD, which were briefly on ice while Judge Pitman’s preliminary injunction was in effect (since stayed by the Fifth Circuit).

    If federal court enjoins state courts from hearing SB8 cases, it will not be a matter of years for these cases to the reach the high court. It will never happen. Unless state judges violate the injunction and make themselves subject to contempt for doing their job: adjudicating matters already before them.

    VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION: PRO-ABORTION GO! -- PRO-LIFE STOP!

    Here is the other problem: the 14 pending cases in Travis County don’t involve SB8 claims, but seek to declare SB8 unconstitutional through the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act. So, are these 14 cases subject to being enjoined too, or only the cases in which an actual SB8 claim for affirmative relief is being asserted against someone alleged to have violated SB8?

    Think about the implications: If the federal injunction in targeted on SB8 claimants only, SB8-related litigation can – or cannot -- go forward depending on whether the plaintiff is pro-abortion (seeking to invalidate SB8) or pro-life (seeking to defend SB8 at least in part or as applied). And the targets of the injunction (such as Texas Right to Life) might even be barred from asserting their position in court while their opponents would be enabled to litigate them into oblivion with offensive duplicative litigation (13 copycat cases by different pro-abortion plaintiffs represented by the same lawyers currently) and claims for attorney’s fees (which are available under the DJA) to be shifted to them.

    So, the contemplated federal anti-suit injunction would in effect amount to court-inflicted discrimination and selective denial of the right to litigate based on viewpoint. Pro-abortion plaintiffs may sue pro-life organizations and individuals for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees, but pro-life organizations and individuals will perhaps not even be allowed to defend themselves (much less counterclaim) because in doing so they would be defending SB8, and would be trying to preserve the Texas Heartbeat Act as a viable legal basis to bring potential suits against abortion providers in the future.

    Bottom line: A federal injunction selectively suppressing SB8 claims in state court cannot stand for this additional reason. It would be discriminatory and violate the First Amendment right to speak and petition, due process, and equal protection.

  11. But...but...it's PRIVATE oppression! Only government can violate our rights! Right?

    1. Well yes but it's still gov't who is carving out a particular exception to "asset forfeiture", also known as theft, as penalty for behavior they don't like. It would actually be trivial for other states to follow suit in limiting the "any person" bit by also allowing "any person" to sue people in that state who file an S.B.8 lawsuit.

      At some point though it becomes childish and no doubt sooner or later the commerce clause will be invoked by congress.

  12. "Roadmap to Privatized Oppression"

    Now do the five largest tech companies conspiring to suppress conservative or dissenting speech while enjoying extra legal protection for claiming to be public forums rather than content providers.

    1. Then do all the "private companies" coercing employees into revealing confidential medical information and accepting unwanted experimental medical treatments in violation of the Nuremberg Code, the UN declarations of human rights, and several federal laws.

  13. The state argues that since it can't legally stop people from having abortions that it can pass legislation to allow private individuals to sue people into stopping that activity.

    In that vein, why couldn't Utah pass a law allowing people to sue if they have evidence that someone is participating in a non-LDS religion?

    After all, if walking into a women's clinic can be used as evidence that a woman had an abortion, walking into a Catholic church could be used as evidence that someone worshipped there.

    In short order, they could sue every non-LDS church out of existence, just like Texas is threatening to have every women's clinic which continues to offer abortion services sued out of existence.

    (That's the line of questioning used by a couple of Supreme Court justices but I think it's have worked better if they'd used religion as the basis for the question rather using than gun ownership rights.)

  14. As it pertains to abortion, what about the Libertarian pledge: "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." No person shall be forced to support any other person in any way. Any law that would prevent a child bearer from terminating a pregnancy would violate that principle. Child bearers should be as free as anyone else.

    1. Abortion is the initiation of lethal force against the unborn.

  15. Abortion enables prostitution. Prostitution is a crime, not a right. If texans openly vote against unchecked abortion laws, legislators are required to pass laws to ban it and the courts are duty bound to enforce it, including and especially the supreme court. The supreme court is a lower court than the people's court.

    1. The Supreme Court is SUPPOSE to be the upholders of "The People's" law over their government --- The U.S. Constitution.

      Talk about flipping things on it's head.

  16. The question of errosion of core principles being erroded by a alteration of a 3rd amendmen awarded right to abortion, is rediculous. Abortion rights are not penned by any legislature where as first and second have been the law of the land since america's birth. Kavanaw isnt a very good justice if he thought otherwise. Abortion is a privilage at either the state county or municipal level. Not the federal. Constituencies can certainly ban it. Especialy since the first and second are already essentially banned at the municipal lvl.

  17. To be clear, the author is objecting to "privatization" not "oppression"

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.