Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

This law is worse than you can imagine, because it's not actually a criminal law.  It's a civil law, enforced by citizens who are actually deputized by the state.  Roe V Wade protects the right of abortion from gov't interference.  This state is not providing the interference.  If a citizen suspects that a woman (and/or a clinic, I'm not quite sure) had an abortion past the heartbeat stage, the citizen can file a civil suit.  

If the citizen prevails, they are entitled to a $10,000 civil judgment, plus attorney and court costs.  What's worse, if the citizen does not prevail, the woman (defendant) is NOT entitled to attorney fees.  So essentially a woman will have to spend money defending herself in either case.  And because someone can bring a frivolous case, you will see 'revenge suits' that likely have no merit.  I mean this is a total travesty of justice.  

Not only that but the suit can be filed in any county in Tejas by any US citizen, requiring the clinic/defendant to travel, definitely some potential long distances. But imagine, some evangelical pro-lifer in Maine can come on down to Tejas and file suit. And guess what? If you’re the defendant, you’ve got to respond. What Tejas has in size it certainly lacks in compassion.

Time to boycott ATT, American Airlines, Southwest, Tito’s Vodka and any other corporation or product headquartered, produced/manufactured or who donated to those repubs that wrote, passed and signed that bill into law.

Please, Mexico, take Tejas back. We’ll pay you to take it, please?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTVNyenF8Xq/?utm_medium=copy_link

I don't think that's true.  That's a venue issue.  You can't sue a someone from Maine for what they did in Maine.  The statute doesn't apply.

A citizen from Maine can sue an abortion provider or facilitator in Tejas. Any US citizen can file in Tejas.

Oh I see. Yes that makes sense. The whole thing is idiotic and ripe for abuse. 

mickeyrat

this goes here too ...

 September 2, 2021 (Thursday)

In the light of day today, the political fallout from Texas’s anti-abortion S.B. 8 law and the Supreme Court’s acceptance of that law continues to become clear.

By 1:00 this afternoon, the Fox News Channel had mentioned the decision only in a 20-second news brief in the 5 am hour. In political terms, it seems the dog has caught the car.

As I’ve said repeatedly, most Americans agree on most issues, even the hot button ones like abortion. A Gallup poll from June examining the issue of abortion concluded that only 32% of Americans wanted the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision overturned, while 58% of Americans opposed overturning it.

"’Overturning Roe v. Wade,’" Lydia Saad of Gallup wrote, “is a shorthand way of saying the Supreme Court could decide abortion is not a constitutional right after all, thus giving control of abortion laws back to the states. This does not sit well with a majority of Americans or even a large subset of Republicans. Not only do Americans oppose overturning Roe in principle, but they oppose laws limiting abortion in early stages of pregnancy that would have the same practical effect.”

While it is hard to remember today, the modern-day opposition to abortion had its roots not in a moral defense of life but rather in the need for President Richard Nixon to win votes before the 1972 election. Pushing the idea that abortion was a central issue of American life was about rejecting the equal protection of the laws embraced by the Democrats far more than it was ever about using the government to protect fetuses.

Abortion had been a part of American life since its inception, but states began to criminalize abortion in the 1870s. By 1960, an observer estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal U.S. abortions a year, endangering women, primarily poor ones who could not afford a workaround.

To stem this public health crisis, doctors wanted to decriminalize abortion and keep it between a woman and her doctor. In the 1960s, states began to decriminalize abortion on this medical model, and support for abortion rights grew.

The rising women's movement wanted women to have control over their lives. Its leaders were latecomers to the reproductive rights movement, but they came to see reproductive rights as key to self-determination. In 1969, activist Betty Friedan told a medical abortion meeting: “[M]y only claim to be here, is our belated recognition, if you will, that there is no freedom, no equality, no full human dignity and personhood possible for women until we assert and demand the control over our own bodies, over our own reproductive process….”

In 1971, even the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention agreed that abortion should be legal in some cases, and vowed to work for modernization. Their convention that year reiterated its “belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves” but also called on “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

By 1972, Gallup pollsters reported that 64% of Americans agreed that abortion was between a woman and her doctor. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans, who had always liked family planning, agreed, as did 59% of Democrats.

In keeping with that sentiment, in 1973, the Supreme Court, under Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a decision written by Republican Harry Blackmun, decided Roe v. Wade, legalizing first-trimester abortion.

The common story is that Roe sparked a backlash. But legal scholars Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel found something interesting. In a 2011 article in the Yale Law Journal, they showed that opposition to the eventual Roe v. Wade decision began in 1972—the year before the decision—and that it was a deliberate attempt to polarize American politics.

In 1972, Nixon was up for reelection, and he and his people were paranoid that he would lose. His adviser Pat Buchanan was a Goldwater man who wanted to destroy the popular New Deal state that regulated the economy and protected social welfare and civil rights. To that end, he believed Democrats and traditional Republicans must be kept from power and Nixon must win reelection.

Catholics, who opposed abortion and believed that "the right of innocent human beings to life is sacred," tended to vote for Democratic candidates. Buchanan, who was a Catholic himself, urged Nixon to woo Catholic Democrats before the 1972 election over the issue of abortion. In 1970, Nixon had directed U.S. military hospitals to perform abortions regardless of state law; in 1971, using Catholic language, he reversed course to split the Democrats, citing his personal belief "in the sanctity of human life—including the life of the yet unborn.”

Although Nixon and Democratic nominee George McGovern had similar stances on abortion, Nixon and Buchanan defined McGovern as the candidate of "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion," a radical framing designed to alienate traditionalists.

As Nixon split the U.S. in two to rally voters, his supporters used abortion to stand in for women's rights in general. Railing against the Equal Rights Amendment, in her first statement on abortion in 1972, activist Phyllis Schlafly did not talk about fetuses; she said: “Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother and on the family as the basic unit of society. Women’s libbers are trying to make wives and mothers unhappy with their career, make them feel that they are ‘second-class citizens’ and ‘abject slaves.’ Women’s libbers are promoting free sex instead of the ‘slavery’ of marriage. They are promoting Federal ‘day-care centers’ for babies instead of homes. They are promoting abortions instead of families.”

Traditional Republicans supported an activist government that regulated business and promoted social welfare, but radical right Movement Conservatives wanted to kill the active government. They attacked anyone who supported such a government as immoral. Abortion turned women's rights into murder.

Movement Conservatives preached traditional roles, and in 1974, the TV show Little House on the Prairie started its 9-year run, contributing, as historian Peggy O’Donnell has explored, to the image of white women as wives and mothers in the West protected by their menfolk. So-called prairie dresses became the rage in the 1970s.

This image was the female side of the cowboy individualism personified by Ronald Reagan. A man should control his own destiny and take care of his family unencumbered by government. Women should be wives and mothers in a nuclear family. In 1984, sociologist Kristin Luker discovered that "pro-life" activists believed that selfish "pro-choice" women were denigrating the roles of wife and mother. They wanted an active government to give them rights they didn't need or deserve.

By 1988, Rush Limbaugh, the voice of Movement Conservatism, who was virulently opposed to taxation and active government, demonized women's rights advocates as "Femi-nazis" for whom "the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur." The complicated issue of abortion had become a proxy for a way to denigrate the political opponents of the radicalizing Republican Party.  

Such threats turned out Republican voters, especially the evangelical base. But support for safe and legal abortion has always been strong, as it remains today. Until yesterday, Republican politicians could pay lip service to opposing the Roe v. Wade decision to get anti-abortion voters to show up at the polls, without facing the political fallout of actually getting rid of the decision.

Now, though, Texas has effectively destroyed the right to legal abortion.

The fact that the Fox News Channel is not mentioning what should have been a landmark triumph of its viewers’ ideology suggests Republicans know that ending safe and legal abortion is deeply unpopular. Their base finally, after all these years, got what it wanted. But now the rest of the nation, which had been assured as recently as the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that Roe v. Wade was settled law that would not be overturned, gets a chance to weigh in.

brianlux

Watching and supporting the women's right movement for so many years going clear back to the mid to late 60's, it's more than a little mind blowing to see so much regression in parts of this country, and now zenith of bullshit this in Texas.  What the hell?  We never let up on standing firm on women's rights. How the hell did this happen? 

I won't argue about how anyone feels about abortion.  Feelings are normal and for many, a negative reaction to abortion is normal.  I have been close to women (of various differing relations) who have gone through it.  There was nothing casual about it and it was not an "easy or lazy way for contraception".  Abortions are serious shit.  But regardless how anyone feels, it's still nobody's right to make the call but a woman for herself and her own body.  I can't believe this shit is happening. I can't imagine the hell some women stuck in Texas are going through.  Fucking hell.

tempo_n_groove

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

not just doctors. the nurses. office staff. a counseler who talked about it. those who gave a ride to or from. any assistance to a woman who seeks an otherwise legal medical procedure can be sued for 10k. as defendant you MUST defend yourself or you are found guilty. you will pay 10k, atty fees court costs....

you win? you pay your attorney's.

read the letter from an american for sept 2. she lays out something thats food for thought.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

FOX , brief mention in the 5am hour...... otherwise, radio silence

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

FOX , brief mention in the 5am hour...... otherwise, radio silence

No way.. geez.  This is headline stuff. Real news.  They really do keep their people in a bubble. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

FOX , brief mention in the 5am hour...... otherwise, radio silence

No way.. geez.  This is headline stuff. Real news.  They really do keep their people in a bubble. 

according to HCR in the days LFaA . and she explains why that could be.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

FOX , brief mention in the 5am hour...... otherwise, radio silence

No way.. geez.  This is headline stuff. Real news.  They really do keep their people in a bubble. 

according to HCR in the days LFaA . and she explains why that could be.

I do not understand what you mean. 

OnWis97

I suspect there will be active charities established to 1. Pay settlements for those that lose cases
2. Bring frivolous suits against supporters of this nonsense.

 I’ll donate to each.  I hope this does to the Texas courts what Covid is doing to the Texas hospitals.

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

FOX , brief mention in the 5am hour...... otherwise, radio silence

No way.. geez.  This is headline stuff. Real news.  They really do keep their people in a bubble. 

according to HCR in the days LFaA . and she explains why that could be.

I do not understand what you mean. 

Heather Cox Richardson, author of Letter From an American

posted Sept 2 above andvin the letter thread. worthy read. as usual.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

I suspect there will be active charities established to 1. Pay settlements for those that lose cases
2. Bring frivolous suits against supporters of this nonsense.

 I’ll donate to each.  I hope this does to the Texas courts what Covid is doing to the Texas hospitals.

Right, there needs to be a case.  And it will take a while for this to happen.  The good news is that the VA governor's race just tilted even more than the natural lean D.  This will get VA Dems motivated to vote this fall.  It will be issue #1 and that's not good for Glen Youngkin. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

Kristy Noem in SD has directed her state’s Advocate for the Unborn, in the gubner’s office, to study the Texas law and ensure that SD’s law Is “the toughest anti-abortion law in the nation.” Flo Rida has announced or is already drafting legislation similar to Tejas’.

Between voter suppression, gerrymandered districts, a stacked SCOTUS and dark money, Roe vs Wade is done in those states that want in done. Thanks Bernie and Sue.

HughFreakingDillon

I saw a post on twitter saying that since there is no law against false or frivolous claims in Texas, anyone who knows how to fake their IP address can file a claim online against any republican they wish. 

not that I'd endorse anyone to do that. Just an FYI. 

Gern Blansten

drakeheuer14 said:

Abortions are used in jokes and joked about. Next time I come across this, I will be sure to post it in here. I would love to see the psychology behind knowing its an option and how that affects sexual behavior though. I will have to look into that. 

Like in school, if you had a test, but knew you could drop the grade after the fact, you may not take the test as seriously to begin with. So that’s more what I mean my simple. Not the actual procedure, but the mere fact an option exists after the fact. 

There are plenty of anti-abortion jokes as well....proves nothing

The more I read the above the more I want to hurl myself out a window.  This is another straw man with anti-abortion people...based on your example would you agree that funding for education would be key to prevention?  Or would you be first in line burning your bra if your kids school started teaching that stuff in sex ed?

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

Depends on what you consider "this" to be.  Roe v Wade established that abortion was enumerated in the due process clause.  So therefore, no the tenth would not give the "state" the right to do it.  The tenth provides power to the state if not delegated to the federal gov't.  However, the legal trick that was pulled here was giving the power to prosecute to citizens, not the state.  That's why the SCOTUS didn't enjoin it (so they say).  

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I haven't read up much on the legal aspect of this but doesn't the 10th amendment give Texas the right to do this?

roe is still in effect. women can still receive this type of care. just those who help her can be sued civilly.

there may be something in tort law that can block it, but not being a law scholar I cant say.

Thx for clarifying.

Nobody is up in arms in Texas about how the govt is then pretty much telling you to go after the people(doctors) whom perform the abortions after 6 weeks?

I think lots of people are upset in TX and across the country.  As you've probably noticed, very few national republicans have said a word (only Tom Cotton I think), whereas every Democrat is making a stink.  That tells you where they think the electorate will be on the issue. 

Kristy Noem in SD has directed her state’s Advocate for the Unborn, in the gubner’s office, to study the Texas law and ensure that SD’s law Is “the toughest anti-abortion law in the nation.” Flo Rida has announced or is already drafting legislation similar to Tejas’.

Between voter suppression, gerrymandered districts, a stacked SCOTUS and dark money, Roe vs Wade is done in those states that want in done. Thanks Bernie and Sue.

That's why I said "national republicans", meaning a federal official.  They know this is a losing issue when fighting for control of a chamber.  It may be good politics in TX and SD, but I don't think it's good national politics.