Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

1383940414244»

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,854
    Mexican Supreme Court gets it.. ..

    Mexico Supreme Court rules criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/americas/mexico-criminalizing-abortion-unconstitutional-intl-latam/index.html
    They're more advanced so...
  • Fair is fair, right?


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 5,162
    Fair is fair, right?


    Haaaaa! That’s amazing. 
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,297
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 29,179
    STATES RIGHTS! FEDERAL OVERREACH! EXCEPT WHEN WE NEED HELP! 
    ...courage is fear that just said its prayers...

  • Damn those Dems.

    House passes legislation to create statutory right to abortion as battle over Texas law heats up

    The House on Friday passed legislation that would create a statutory right for health-care professionals to provide abortions, amid an intensifying legal battle over a Texas law that is the most restrictive in the nation.

    H.R. 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was approved by the Democratic-controlled House 218 to 211, but faces tough odds in the evenly divided Senate.

    The measure states that health-care providers have a statutory right to provide, and patients have a right to receive, abortion services without any number of limitations that states and opponents of the procedure have sought to impose.

    The measure would essentially codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

    The new Texas law, which took effect Sept. 1 after the Supreme Court refused to immediately block its enforcement, bans abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and makes no exceptions for rape, sexual abuse or incest.

    House passes legislation to create statutory right to abortion as battle over Texas law heats up - The Washington Post

    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 9,905

    Give Peas A Chance…
  • drakeheuer14drakeheuer14 Posts: 3,595


    I said I would come back and post next time I ran across someone joking about it, laughing it off if you will, so here you go. Happens plenty. 
    Pittsburgh 2013
    Cincinnati 2014
    Greenville 2016
    (Raleigh 2016)
    Columbia 2016
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,854


    I said I would come back and post next time I ran across someone joking about it, laughing it off if you will, so here you go. Happens plenty. 
    Well I guess that means no one should have the right.  I hate when one person ruins it for the whole class,  but oh well. 
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,297

  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,297
    edited October 2021
    Post edited by Bentleyspop on
  • Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,854
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
  • mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,854
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
  • mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,081
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
  • static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    The first one they want and will try in other states for.  The other 2 will never happen.
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,081
    edited December 2021
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    The first one they want and will try in other states for.  The other 2 will never happen.
    Right, but what about in blue states?  That's where the precedence comes in.  It would very easily spiral out of control.
  • static111 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    The first one they want and will try in other states for.  The other 2 will never happen.
    Right, but what about in blue states?  That's where the precedence comes in.  It would very easily spiral out of control.
    You really think they have an interest in actually doing that?  Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,854
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    Yes great point.  Pandora's box to circumvent the Bill of Rights on almost anything. 
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,081
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    The first one they want and will try in other states for.  The other 2 will never happen.
    Right, but what about in blue states?  That's where the precedence comes in.  It would very easily spiral out of control.
    You really think they have an interest in actually doing that?  Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
    If the TX rule were to be granted precedence by the SC there is no limit to what kinds of similar laws could be made.  So yes I think fair is fair if TX gets upheld.  I doubt it will because the heavily conservative court has the foresight to see that this will lead to laws against their favorite wedge issues if given standing.

    Additionally you don't need house and senate majorities on the national level if your party controls the state where such a law would be set up.
  • static111 said:
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    The first one they want and will try in other states for.  The other 2 will never happen.
    Right, but what about in blue states?  That's where the precedence comes in.  It would very easily spiral out of control.
    You really think they have an interest in actually doing that?  Something would have been done when they had both the House and Senate.
    If the TX rule were to be granted precedence by the SC there is no limit to what kinds of similar laws could be made.  So yes I think fair is fair if TX gets upheld.  I doubt it will because the heavily conservative court has the foresight to see that this will lead to laws against their favorite wedge issues if given standing.

    Additionally you don't need house and senate majorities on the national level if your party controls the state where such a law would be set up.
    I was thinking of a national bill, sorry.  I was getting ahead of myself.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,748
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 184
    edited December 2021
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Not sure if anyone has been following this case or not but they are going the lines of Texas and attacking Roe vs Wade on the notion that it is a states right and does not interfere w Roe vs Wade.
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/abortion-rights-cases-supreme-court-explainer/index.html
    TX is totally different than MS, regarding the way the law works.  It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Roe would be struck down along with the the TX law.  But at that point, TX won't care.  The whole point was to avoid Roe.  But there's a very good chance that a federal allowance for abortion is going to be gone by Q3.  Then state laws kick in.  But it will certainly be a mid term campaign issue. 
    Abortions illegal after 15 weeks vs 6 weeks.  They both undermine Roe vs wade though, no?
    No, they don't.  Roe prevents the state from restricting abortion, using the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment.  The TX law is completely different.  It allows ordinary citizens to file a civil lawsuit against an abortion provider (or anyone else who assisted in the abortion) for a civil penalty up to 10K, due to the plaintiff.  It's not a criminal offense and it isn't a judgment for the state, it's a judgement for citizen who filed the suit.  It was a novel TX way to bypass the state gov't, therefore bypassing Roe.  The point is to financially deter anyone from participating in the abortion. 
    Ahh yes.  Got it.  The 6 weeks was for the civil suit to be filed in Texas.  

    But no one else is following?  I figured this would be a hot topic on here.
    I don't think it has a chance as allowing the TX law to stand would open the floodgates for similar legislation that skirts individual rights.  As much  as the right hates abortion they would hate to let a law like this stand that allowed precedence for imposing harsh fines for gun ownership, hate speech etc. 
    yep.  One of the justices pointed that out.

    California can’t ban guns because of the constitution but they could follow Texas’s lead and pass a law that gives a private citizen the right to sue a store, a manufacture, the delivery driver, the salesman and anyone who facilitated the sale of that gun. Thus indirectly banning guns by bankrupting anyone involved in their sale 

    … but the state didn’t ban guns so they are in the clear.

    that’s how short sighted these people who wrote this bill are.  It would be a disaster for republicans in the long term solely based on demographic shifts on a whole host of issues
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 184
    edited December 2021
    .
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
Sign In or Register to comment.