Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Ledbetterman10

I'll never understand conservatives' stance on abortion. I always envision the following exchange:


Young pregnant girl: I want to have an abortion. I have no money and I'm not fit to be a mother. 

Republican politician: NO! You're having that child! You're not going to be a baby-KILLER!

Young pregnant girl: Okay...okay. I'll have the baby. But, like I said, I have no money. Can you give me some welfare money to help me raise the child?

Republican politician: Oh....umm....yeah....that's not our department. You might want to talk to the Democrats about that one. See we want you to have the child, but we don't give a crap what happens to the child once you have it. It can die for all we care. In fact, after you give birth to the kid, you can borrow my gun if you want to get rid of him/her.



So the republican insists you have the child, and then will bitch about the democrats' free handouts. If the child never existed, there'd be less need for government handouts. 

OnWis97

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

It’s going to happen.  And it needs to.

Merkin Baller

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'll never understand conservatives' stance on abortion. I always envision the following exchange:


Young pregnant girl: I want to have an abortion. I have no money and I'm not fit to be a mother. 

Republican politician: NO! You're having that child! You're not going to be a baby-KILLER!

Young pregnant girl: Okay...okay. I'll have the baby. But, like I said, I have no money. Can you give me some welfare money to help me raise the child?

Republican politician: Oh....umm....yeah....that's not our department. You might want to talk to the Democrats about that one. See we want you to have the child, but we don't give a crap what happens to the child once you have it. It can die for all we care. In fact, after you give birth to the kid, you can borrow my gun if you want to get rid of him/her.



So the republican insists you have the child, and then will bitch about the democrats' free handouts. If the child never existed, there'd be less need for government handouts. 

It makes complete and perfect sense if you look at it from the angle that the wealthy will always have access to safe abortions, whereas the middle and most (importantly) of all the lower class will be the ones most negatively impacted by abortion restrictions. 

Good luck moving upward with that unwanted child you may not be able to afford. 

Meltdown99

The party that claims to want small government, less government control…yada yada yada…wants to control your body.  Abortion illegal, weed illegal yada yada…

Too bad all the females in Texas don’t pack up and leave.

mrussel1

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'll never understand conservatives' stance on abortion. I always envision the following exchange:


Young pregnant girl: I want to have an abortion. I have no money and I'm not fit to be a mother. 

Republican politician: NO! You're having that child! You're not going to be a baby-KILLER!

Young pregnant girl: Okay...okay. I'll have the baby. But, like I said, I have no money. Can you give me some welfare money to help me raise the child?

Republican politician: Oh....umm....yeah....that's not our department. You might want to talk to the Democrats about that one. See we want you to have the child, but we don't give a crap what happens to the child once you have it. It can die for all we care. In fact, after you give birth to the kid, you can borrow my gun if you want to get rid of him/her.



So the republican insists you have the child, and then will bitch about the democrats' free handouts. If the child never existed, there'd be less need for government handouts. 

That's exactly right.  Back 15 years ago, my boss was (still is) a bishop in the LDS church.  He was vehemently anti-abortion, as you can imagine.  But he walked the walk.  He had 8 children of his own and adopted and fostered more.  But we used to discuss this very issue, and I would say that if we are going to ban abortion, we have to dramatically increase funding to the child welfare state.  Successful, middle class white women do not have a lot of abortions.  It's younger, underclass and minority women who lack the means to raise the child.  Now obviously that is not 100% of the time.  He agreed with that, but again..he's LDS.  And if there is one thing I can say about that community is that they take care of their own and are very charitable.  

gimmesometruth27

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Ledbetterman10

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

It doesn't matter what Jesus said because he probably didn't say anything about it. What a hardcore Christian would say about abortion is that it's murder. Some might truly believe that, others might not. But it gives them (or at least they think it gives them) a moral high-ground in the debate. After all, the term "pro-life" sounds like a pretty positive thing considering the opposite would be "pro-death."

mrussel1

gimmesometruth27 said:

questions for christian members of the gop.

what did jesus say about abortion?

since your entire party has based their politics on abortion the last 60 years, what did jesus specifically say about ending a pregnancy?

Thou shall not kill.  It's that simple to them.  And if life begins at conception, then it is killing.  There's no Christian argument that supports abortion. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

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. 

These are folks with nationalist aspirations, aiming for the POOTWH blessing. 2022 midterms will be telling. Do repubs gain or lose seats?

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

I saw something circulating on twitter about this.  Instructions on how to use a fake IP address, fake TX address, and then file complaints to bog down their system

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

I saw something circulating on twitter about this.  Instructions on how to use a fake IP address, fake TX address, and then file complaints to bog down their system

File complaints?  If you mean legal complaints, you have to pay court costs when you file otherwise the case won't be docketed.  I don't think that's going to work. 

Halifax2TheMax

I suggest folks do those sudden crowd things and wear masks, hoodies, shades, etc. and leave the ID at home. Go into the clinic enmass as a swarm and the litigators or complaintants have no idea who or what. How long before someone is threatened with a gun over this? Over/under?

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

I saw something circulating on twitter about this.  Instructions on how to use a fake IP address, fake TX address, and then file complaints to bog down their system

File complaints?  If you mean legal complaints, you have to pay court costs when you file otherwise the case won't be docketed.  I don't think that's going to work. 

does it cost anything for this "report someone getting/aiding/abetting getting an abortion" thing?

Halifax2TheMax

You go Tejas, being “pro-life” as you are. Yay Tejas!

https://everytexan.org/images/2018KC_newsrelease_TX_FINAL.pdf

Child poverty, healthcare and education rates for Tejas. We should all be like Tejas.

Halifax2TheMax

Only the shadow knows. "I dissent." "I respectively dissent." What's that? Can't happen here?

Rulings without explanations

The Supreme Court opinion allowing Texas to ban nearly all abortions was different from most major rulings by the court.

This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.

Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.

Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.

Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.

For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.

“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”

Why the shadow docket has grown

Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?

In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.

But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.

Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”

During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”

The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”

Six vs. three

The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.

The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”

Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.

The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.

For more on the Texas abortion law:

• Republican lawmakers in Arkansas, Florida and South Dakota pledged to enact similar legislation.

• “Patients are crying. There’s a lot of anxiety and frustration,” one Planned Parenthood director said.

• Public opinion will play a greater role in shaping abortion policy. Here are the restrictions most Americans favor.

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

I saw something circulating on twitter about this.  Instructions on how to use a fake IP address, fake TX address, and then file complaints to bog down their system

File complaints?  If you mean legal complaints, you have to pay court costs when you file otherwise the case won't be docketed.  I don't think that's going to work. 

does it cost anything for this "report someone getting/aiding/abetting getting an abortion" thing?

I'm not sure, but my understanding is that someone has to file a legal complaint to essentially sue the provider.  So there needs to be a plaintiff who would have an attorney.  

tempo_n_groove

Is there anything about a still born abortion in the new law?  I haven't seen anything of the sort yet.

EDIT: Nevermind.  It involves a heart beat.

Bentleyspop

Most "pro-lifers" are also pro death penalty.  When you call them on it they usually come back with some biblical reference. But when you tell them about "thou shalt not kill" and that Jesus would grave been anti-death penalty. They have nothing.

Forced birth hypocrites 

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

Most "pro-lifers" are also pro death penalty.  When you call them on it they usually come back with some biblical reference. But when you tell them about "thou shalt not kill" and that Jesus would grave been anti-death penalty. They have nothing.

Forced birth hypocrites 

That's one thing about hte Pope and the Church.  They have been consistently against both abortions and capital punishment.  The American Protestant faiths, not so much. 

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Most "pro-lifers" are also pro death penalty.  When you call them on it they usually come back with some biblical reference. But when you tell them about "thou shalt not kill" and that Jesus would grave been anti-death penalty. They have nothing.

Forced birth hypocrites 

That's one thing about hte Pope and the Church.  They have been consistently against both abortions and capital punishment.  The American Protestant faiths, not so much. 

Exactly
And I live in a state with an "orthodox" catholic  governor who loves the death penalty and will try to follow texas with restrictive anti-abortion legislation.

Another forced birth hypocrite