Abortion Access In Texas

Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall
First the women will lose their rights, then the christofascists will go after the LGBQT folks, then come for minorities.

Party like it's 1599!!
 
Teetertotter?

Teetertotter?

Senior Audioholic
Sure glad I don't live in TX with the Republicans in office running a dictatorship, coupled with their judges. Are they really for the people like those Republican Reps in DC???? We need to rid the Republicans in any US office. pefully the Democrats will get their act together and Democrat majority rules over whelming next year and in 2024. Right............ Loooong story short.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
What do think of this opinion?
It’s true that the opinion was narrow in terms of which defendants remain. One of the main issues is that (as far as I know) no one has actually sued an abortion provider under the law so the law hasn’t really been tested.

I am a little surprised that more justices didn’t go along with Roberts. For what it’s worth, Marbury vs Madison is is probably the first Supreme Court case most 1Ls study in law school. The Constitution is silent with regards to which branch of the government has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. In Marbury the Supreme Court bootstrapped the issue and declared that it has that power. It’s a bit of a logical conundrum but Marbury has never been seriously challenged.

I’ve wondered why there haven’t been any offers to cover the costs of an abortion provider as a way to test the law. The law doesn’t actually make abortion illegal, it just potentially creates a financial penalty. Fighting the state or federal government in a criminal case is no fun, but it’s hard to say how organized and well funded a private litigant might be. Even if the law is not struck down as unconstitutional, overall the law strikes me as being very unwieldy.
 
robert diiorio

robert diiorio

Enthusiast
Since the Steam Vent has been rather quiet lately, filled with completely uncontroversial topics ;), I thought I'd stir the pot a little. Regardless of ones opinion on abortion, I'm at a loss to understand how the new law in Texas could be considered even remotely constitutional. How can somebody be able to file a lawsuit against another person(s) for possible financial gain when they have suffered no personal injury or financial loss?
Here's the new reality under Texas's abortion law — and how it could affect the rest of the U.S. | CBC News

While I understand that there have been lawsuits in the past where direct harm has not been suffered, but where potential harm may be suffered, such as suing government for failure to enforce environmental laws, I don't see any parallel when a complete stranger has an abortion.

While it may not be his specialty, perhaps @Mr._Clark would chime in with his opinion.
Government, or more rightly individuals the citizens elected to administer OUR government have no business telling a citizen how to lead their Life regarding abortion. In the same vain NO state should have any right over the citizen either in regards to abortion. Its no ones business but of those who caused conception. I am not talking of conception by force or rape.
 
A

Am_P

Full Audioholic
There are 400,000 orphans in the country right now. I don't see any "pro life" hillbilly adopting any.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Samurai
Since @GO-NAD! did such a poor job of stirring the pot... ;) (I'm just kidding) here's my two cents. I don't understand all the expert terms used in US law, but I did notice something I'd like to comment.

From my point of view, you again agreed upon this "shifting of the center of the debate". You all went along with this "rape and health issues" when it comes to abortion. This would imply you all agree it's wrong?

I think that a woman should be able to get an abortion even if she's just bored that afternoon or couldn't find anything better to do. (Deliberately putting it bluntly) It is not a woman's right if it only concerns the instances of poor health or trauma. Women include human beings with good health and with no trauma as well.

The point of this woman's right is to prevent Church to "colonize" woman's body using State by proxy.

This in itself should be enough to make this right be written in law and worthwhile. It is about what it's preventing.

Women should have the complete agency over their bodies. The abortion should be legal, painless, done by very polite and decent experts, with no last minute pressure from the Church or lawyers, doctors, teachers of philosophy/ethics... (All of those are very welcome before the pregnancy if a woman wants them.)

I'm gonna use a silly example to portray what I mean; if in some fantastical, fairy-tale world, human beings procreated via eggs, I would retreat in my position. If it was so that as soon as an egg gets inseminated it comes out of a woman in a day or two, in a hard enclosing and develops further without the need of the human (women's) body, I would defend the position that preventing such a procreation would be utterly useless and unfounded.

I believe human beings procreate in such a way that simply requires the female to welcome the pregnancy.

This is why I don't care for the fingernails, toes, heartbeats, beginning of the life etc. and all those bellow the belt punches that people who don't agree with me use to induce guilt trip.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Since @GO-NAD! did such a poor job of stirring the pot... ;) (I'm just kidding) here's my two cents. I don't understand all the expert terms used in US law, but I did notice something I'd like to comment.

From my point of view, you again agreed upon this "shifting of the center of the debate". You all went along with this "rape and health issues" when it comes to abortion. This would imply you all agree it's wrong?

I think that a woman should be able to get an abortion even if she's just bored that afternoon or couldn't find anything better to do. (Deliberately putting it bluntly) It is not a woman's right if it only concerns the instances of poor health or trauma. Women include human beings with good health and with no trauma as well.

The point of this woman's right is to prevent Church to "colonize" woman's body using State by proxy.

This in itself should be enough to make this right be written in law and worthwhile. It is about what it's preventing.

Women should have the complete agency over their bodies. The abortion should be legal, painless, done by very polite and decent experts, with no last minute pressure from the Church or lawyers, doctors, teachers of philosophy/ethics... (All of those are very welcome before the pregnancy if a woman wants them.)

I'm gonna use a silly example to portray what I mean; if in some fantastical, fairy-tale world, human beings procreated via eggs, I would retreat in my position. If it was so that as soon as an egg gets inseminated it comes out of a woman in a day or two, in a hard enclosing and develops further without the need of the human (women's) body, I would defend the position that preventing such a procreation would be utterly useless and unfounded.

I believe human beings procreate in such a way that simply requires the female to welcome the pregnancy.

This is why I don't care for the fingernails, toes, heartbeats, beginning of the life etc. and all those bellow the belt punches that people who don't agree with me use to induce guilt trip.
I'll leave it at the right want complete control over abortion, including rape which is ridiculous at best. On rape, if the woman still wants to keep it then that is a decision only she can make. But the utopian pro-life extremists I assume want to give guidance on the issue which is WTF! It's sorta like when Abbott said We're fighting to prevent rape. It doesn't mesh with reality.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Samurai
I'll leave it at the right want complete control over abortion, including rape which is ridiculous at best. On rape, if the woman still wants to keep it then that is a decision only she can make. But the utopian pro-life extremists I assume want to give guidance on the issue which is WTF! It's sorta like when Abbott said We're fighting to prevent rape. It doesn't mesh with reality.
I'm sorry, I didn't understand you, but I'm interested in what you have to say. Could you please explain the first sentence?
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I'm sorry, I didn't understand you, but I'm interested in what you have to say. Could you please explain the first sentence?
It appears to me the right want to control the entire issue on abortion without the recognition of rape. So you have governor Abbott saying things like his state is stepping up the defense against rape, but what if someone is raped and wants an abortion? There's no addressing of that. Certainly abortion isn't killing a life when rape is the reason, so they don't mention it basically. I wonder if it has something to do with their more extremist voters, the religious right/pro-life utopians? Some of my idea goes back to when Ben Carson ran in 2016 and said even if a woman is raped they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Basically some of the conservative sources I visited omitted that part.

My thinking is what they want to do is control the issue, reduce as many abortions as possible, and then allow abortions from rape, but maybe not mention that last part to their harder base.
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
It appears to me the right want to control the entire issue on abortion without the recognition of rape. So you have governor Abbott saying things like his state is stepping up the defense against rape, but what if someone is raped and wants an abortion? There's no addressing of that. Certainly abortion isn't killing a life when rape is the reason, so they don't mention it basically. I wonder if it has something to do with their more extremist voters, the religious right/pro-life utopians? Some of my idea goes back to when Ben Carson ran in 2016 and said even if a woman is raped they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Basically some of the conservative sources I visited omitted that part.

My thinking is what they want to do is control the issue, reduce as many abortions as possible, and then allow abortions from rape, but maybe not mention that last part to their harder base.
Don'tcha know every sperm is sacred....
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Samurai
It appears to me the right want to control the entire issue on abortion without the recognition of rape. So you have governor Abbott saying things like his state is stepping up the defense against rape, but what if someone is raped and wants an abortion? There's no addressing of that. Certainly abortion isn't killing a life when rape is the reason, so they don't mention it basically. I wonder if it has something to do with their more extremist voters, the religious right/pro-life utopians? Some of my idea goes back to when Ben Carson ran in 2016 and said even if a woman is raped they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Basically some of the conservative sources I visited omitted that part.

My thinking is what they want to do is control the issue, reduce as many abortions as possible, and then allow abortions from rape, but maybe not mention that last part to their harder base.
Ah OK. Thank you. It all got mixed up because of right as in 'one's right' and right as in Republicans.

As you might've concluded from what I wrote, I oppose the notion that only rape is an excuse for abortion.

I stand behind full body autonomy for women as a necessary prerequisite for their freedom. One should be allowed to sway women without coercion, laws, bans... You know, politely, through arguments. Sure. But not with laws regulating their bodies.

I also don't fully agree it's men : women debate. The loudest "pro-life" here in my country are women. Very often it's women on both sides. Still, I don't think even women should be allowed to pass that law on other women.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top