Abortion Access In Texas

MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Senior Audioholic
Laws give some office of government the authority to issue a mandate.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
All I can say is fukk Texas... our family mostly left long ago....one part that stayed in the Dallas area owned an evangelical type church and made a good living off their suckers....
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
States Rights has always been a myth.
Yeah but then we have the feds telling the state what to do, and if the bill excludes due to the health of the mother and rape well I don't see the problem with their position. Would it create more individual responsibility, or would it just create more problems? I dunno.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008H.pdf

I don't see anything unusual in the bill. Includes allowing abortions due to rape and when the mother's health is at risk. I prefer a state's rights approach but admit not knowing the technical legal stuff Mr. Clark described.
Although it appears that abortions may be performed when a mother's health is at risk, I don't see anything in the document that you linked that permits an abortion in cases of sexual assault. As I understand it, the "fetal heartbeat" provision still applies in such cases.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The Texas abortion law was explicitly created in such a way as to avoid federal judicial review of a law that many (most?) thinks is unconstitutional, and the right-wing majority in the US Supreme Court went along with that.

The Supreme Court decision is disturbing and those anti-abortionist that hails the decision is also very short-sighted, for now there is open season on making similar laws on other issues as well. Gun-ownership comes to mind.
Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court Decision was based on a lack of standing. Courts generally do not decide a case unless a lawsuit has been filed or there's strong threat that a party will file a lawsuit. The one citizen involved in the case that went to U.S. Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. The state of Texas said that it and it's employees cannot enforce the law and there is therefore no threat that the state will enforce the law. As far as I know, so far no one has filed a lawsuit alleging that an abortion provider was liable under the TX law.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law, but that does not mean it will not do so in the future once someone files a lawsuit based on the TX law. It is true that, at least in theory, the U.S. Supreme Court could probably continue to find reasons to avoid a substantive ruling on the TX law almost indefinitely, which would have the effect of upholding the law. However, this strikes me as highly unlikely.

I read most of the TX law. My initial impression is that it's a very odd law in many ways. It is bristles with provisions that are intended to limit defenses and to make it difficult to challenge the constitutionality of the law, while also attempting to cut all ties to the government once it's implemented. It's almost like a robotic attack ship complete with offensive and defense weapons that was built by the legislature and then set sail by the government in hopes that a private party would take control and guide it to it's intended target.

Another initial impression is that it could be quite difficult for a plaintiff to litigate a case under the law (if it ever gets to that). It's not clear to me how a plaintiff "wanna be" would be able to show sufficient facts to file a lawsuit and survive a motion to dismiss. Also, given the potential difficulty in litigating a case under the law, it's not entirely clear to me that that the potential $10k "win" creates a sufficient incentive for widespread litigation. The attorney fee provisions in the law are obviously designed to alleviate this, but I'm not sure how it would play out.

The usual disclaimers about predictions being difficult, especially when they involve the future, apply to the following. I strongly suspect the TX law will be struck down at some point. One of the main issues (as you mentioned) is that if the TX approach were to be upheld, it would open up all sorts of civil law end runs around the Constitution. One can imagine all sorts of bizarre laws. For example, suppose the TX legislature decided to create a civil cause of action allowing citizens to file a lawsuit for $10 million in damages for any public statements or actions of any type in support of a candidate who is not a Republican, or any actions or statements criticizing a Republican. Taking it a step further, how about a civil cause of action against any Democrat (or Republican) who breathes while in Texas?

And, of course, at least one lower court in TX has already gone the other way on the standing issue, even though there has not yet (to my knowledge) been a single action brought under the law.

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court Decision was based on a lack of standing. Courts generally do not decide a case unless a lawsuit has been filed or there's strong threat that a party will file a lawsuit. The one citizen involved in the case that went to U.S. Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. The state of Texas said that it and it's employees cannot enforce the law and there is therefore no threat that the state will enforce the law. As far as I know, so far no one has filed a lawsuit alleging that an abortion provider was liable under the TX law.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law, but that does not mean it will not do so in the future once someone files a lawsuit based on the TX law. It is true that, at least in theory, the U.S. Supreme Court could probably continue to find reasons to avoid a substantive ruling on the TX law almost indefinitely, which would have the effect of upholding the law. However, this strikes me as highly unlikely.

I read most of the TX law. My initial impression is that it's a very odd law in many ways. It is bristles with provisions that are intended to limit defenses and to make it difficult to challenge the constitutionality of the law, while also attempting to cut all ties to the government once it's implemented. It's almost like a robotic attack ship complete with offensive and defense weapons that was built by the legislature and then set sail by the government in hopes that a private party would take control and guide it to it's intended target.

Another initial impression is that it could be quite difficult for a plaintiff to litigate a case under the law (if it ever gets to that). It's not clear to me how a plaintiff "wanna be" would be able to show sufficient facts to file a lawsuit and survive a motion to dismiss. Also, given the potential difficulty in litigating a case under the law, it's not entirely clear to me that that the potential $10k "win" creates a sufficient incentive for widespread litigation. The attorney fee provisions in the law are obviously designed to alleviate this, but I'm not sure how it would play out.

The usual disclaimers about predictions being difficult, especially when they involve the future, apply to the following. I strongly suspect the TX law will be struck down at some point. One of the main issues (as you mentioned) is that if the TX approach were to be upheld, it would open up all sorts of civil law end runs around the Constitution. One can imagine all sorts of bizarre laws. For example, suppose the TX legislature decided to create a civil cause of action allowing citizens to file a lawsuit for $10 million in damages for any public statements or actions of any type in support of a candidate who is not a Republican, or any actions or statements criticizing a Republican. Taking it a step further, how about a civil cause of action against any Democrat (or Republican) who breathes while in Texas?

And, of course, at least one lower court in TX has already gone the other way on the standing issue, even though there has not yet (to my knowledge) been a single action brought under the law.

For obvious reasons I'll avoid be contrary on most (all?) "details" of law with you :)

From a citizen point of view I find the motivation and implementation of the Texan law, along with the Supreme Court decision, unjust and offensive. This is apart from the subject matter at hand: severely restricting abortion.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court Decision was based on a lack of standing. Courts generally do not decide a case unless a lawsuit has been filed or there's strong threat that a party will file a lawsuit. The one citizen involved in the case that went to U.S. Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. The state of Texas said that it and it's employees cannot enforce the law and there is therefore no threat that the state will enforce the law. As far as I know, so far no one has filed a lawsuit alleging that an abortion provider was liable under the TX law.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the law, but that does not mean it will not do so in the future once someone files a lawsuit based on the TX law. It is true that, at least in theory, the U.S. Supreme Court could probably continue to find reasons to avoid a substantive ruling on the TX law almost indefinitely, which would have the effect of upholding the law. However, this strikes me as highly unlikely.

I read most of the TX law. My initial impression is that it's a very odd law in many ways. It is bristles with provisions that are intended to limit defenses and to make it difficult to challenge the constitutionality of the law, while also attempting to cut all ties to the government once it's implemented. It's almost like a robotic attack ship complete with offensive and defense weapons that was built by the legislature and then set sail by the government in hopes that a private party would take control and guide it to it's intended target.

Another initial impression is that it could be quite difficult for a plaintiff to litigate a case under the law (if it ever gets to that). It's not clear to me how a plaintiff "wanna be" would be able to show sufficient facts to file a lawsuit and survive a motion to dismiss. Also, given the potential difficulty in litigating a case under the law, it's not entirely clear to me that that the potential $10k "win" creates a sufficient incentive for widespread litigation. The attorney fee provisions in the law are obviously designed to alleviate this, but I'm not sure how it would play out.

The usual disclaimers about predictions being difficult, especially when they involve the future, apply to the following. I strongly suspect the TX law will be struck down at some point. One of the main issues (as you mentioned) is that if the TX approach were to be upheld, it would open up all sorts of civil law end runs around the Constitution. One can imagine all sorts of bizarre laws. For example, suppose the TX legislature decided to create a civil cause of action allowing citizens to file a lawsuit for $10 million in damages for any public statements or actions of any type in support of a candidate who is not a Republican, or any actions or statements criticizing a Republican. Taking it a step further, how about a civil cause of action against any Democrat (or Republican) who breathes while in Texas?

And, of course, at least one lower court in TX has already gone the other way on the standing issue, even though there has not yet (to my knowledge) been a single action brought under the law.

I get the impression that the law was meant to put a chill on the provision of abortions, by instilling a fear of lawsuits regardless of constitutionality. I'm not sure if I'm using the correct descriptor, but it seems to have been enacted in bad faith.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I get the impression that the law was meant to put a chill on the provision of abortions, by instilling a fear of lawsuits regardless of constitutionality. I'm not sure if I'm using the correct descriptor, but it seems to have been enacted in bad faith.
Exactly, and by this denying citizens their constitutional rights, something G.O.P. has done for decades on other issues. The Republican Supreme Court is enabling them while at the same time trying to passing themselves off as "not partisan hacks".
 
WookieGR

WookieGR

Full Audioholic
Republicans' trying to grow their party with more rape and incest babies while protecting Covid rights seems counter productive.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
The crap going on in Texas along with a few other bible belt states is really upsetting me.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
The crap going on in Texas along with a few other bible belt states is really upsetting me.
Not good for your health. May want to temper viewing the news until you recover. ;) :D
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
All I can say is fukk Texas... our family mostly left long ago....one part that stayed in the Dallas area owned an evangelical type church and made a good living off their suckers....
How do you own a church? That, there's some irony, fer ya. "How much, to sit in the front row?".
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Although it appears that abortions may be performed when a mother's health is at risk, I don't see anything in the document that you linked that permits an abortion in cases of sexual assault. As I understand it, the "fetal heartbeat" provision still applies in such cases.
At the end the part about Abortion and Sonogram Election.....
Though not sure it clearly states so.

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: ___ I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Well, didn't take long for the appeals court to reinstated that abhorrent law.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
At the end the part about Abortion and Sonogram Election.....
Though not sure it clearly states so.

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: ___ I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.
Yeah, I read that. But - and I could be wrong about this - I don't think this section applies if there is a fetal heartbeat detected.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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