Do you think the new Texas abortion law is the first step toward overturning Roe vs. Wade?

I don’t think so.

Interesting and relevant:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/deviousness-texass-new-abortion-law/619945/

I think overturning Roe v. Wade is on the agenda, and this is a step in that direction. This is why Trump packed the Supreme Court with conservative justices.

I can’t begin to imagine how many abortions trump paid for.

Got to allow children to grow up go to schools and be target practice for some unlicensed, unregulated fucking maniac with a gun and a (imagined) grudge. These people are as full of goddamn of shit as a holiday turkey. Don’t get me started..

Let us hope not!

I think it pretty much has overturned Roe v. Wade.

In Texas.

It’s the Abbot and Cruztello Show folks!

The first steps started long ago. Requiring parental consent, requiring a waiting period, outlawing “late-term” abortions, outlawing abortions after 20 weeks. They keep trying to chip away any way they can. Some attempts are successful some aren’t.

This Texas law will force poor women to do illegal and likely unsafe abortions. Rich women will just go to other states, assuming Roe doesn’t get overturned and it stays legal in some states. Is the Texas law using gestational 6 weeks? Two weeks after a missed period? Or, 6 weeks after conception?

Couldn’t tell you, I think it’s utter and complete bull shit. Trying to ignore the whole mess. At my age I don’t need to get my blood pressure any higher than it is already. I know it’s nothing but a cynical fucking ploy by the Repubs to get the conservative Christian vote. You willing to bet that, as soon as that baby is out of the womb, these ass cracks will lose all interest in it? What? Medical care? Are you kidding? You must be a socialist moocher! And there is no political hay to be made out of this! Damn those hippocrite self serving bastards to the lowest level of Hades.

I don’t know, but it makes me nervous as hell.

It makes me nervous as well.
It will be illegal in Texas for a while, but eventually Roe will be restored.

I am ashamed to live in a place where one can be paid a generous bounty for promoting the mutilation and death of an innocent woman.

Part of a NY Times editorial today that explains better:

For nearly half a century, the anti-abortion movement had to settle for partial victories, constantly chipping away at women’s right to an abortion, but never achieving the ultimate goal of overturning Roe itself. Now, with a hard-right supermajority on the bench for this purpose, that goal is within reach — even as a solid and consistent majority of the American public continues to believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

The Texas law, known as SB 8, is the most brazenly anti-abortion law in the country. It bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. By itself, this violates a woman’s constitutional right to get an abortion, which the court has protected at least until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. That is why courts have struck down similar six-week bans in other states.

Texas lawmakers knew this, and they crafted their law specifically to avoid that fate. Instead of making it enforceable the usual way, through government officials, they authorized private citizens — in Texas or anywhere else — to sue anyone who is involved in performing an abortion or who “aids or abets” one: not only a woman’s doctor, but her family, her friends, potentially even the taxi driver who takes her to the clinic. There is no exception for cases of rape or incest, and the plaintiff doesn’t need to have any connection to the woman in order to bring the suit. If it succeeds, he or she is entitled to $10,000 plus legal fees. It’s a dream for bounty hunters and a nightmare for everyone else.

More to the point, it is a straightforward ploy by Texas lawmakers to escape judicial review, because courts are empowered to block officials from enforcing an unconstitutional law, but not the law itself. If there is no official to block, the logic goes, then judges’ hands are tied.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who was until recently among the most conservative justices on the court, wasn’t buying it. “The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime,” the chief justice wrote in dissent.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor elaborated. “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined both dissents and also wrote their own. They all made essentially the same point: No state should be able to evade the Constitution by enacting a cleverly designed law.

It didn’t matter. There are now five justices — a majority of the court — to the right of Chief Justice Roberts, and they were content to let Texas get away with it. In two brief paragraphs of bloodless legal technicalities, the majority claimed that, because the case presents “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions,” the court had no choice but to allow the law to remain in place while legal challenges to it play out. In other words, the conservatives are winking at lawmakers in Texas and across the country. Play all the games you want, they are saying, and we’ll look the other way.

It is not clear to me how they can pass a law that is not enforceable by public officials. There is something repugnant about rewarding people $10,000 for just digging up dirt on someone else.

Absolutely. After this ruling, other state’s, like mine, are already drafting legislation.

The same state’s court also said that employers can terminate employee’s who refuse to get vaccinated.

Am I correct that a case could still be brought to the supreme court eventually? It is not a total rejection to be heard in front of the court is it? This is the stuff of Communist China. Having a neighbor rat on you and being able to gain financially from it? Crazy talk. The center right better open their eyes and reign in the nut jobs in the party or the country will no longer be governed by laws, but rather by extremists and fanatics. This is so outside of the constitution in my opinion. It’s Salem Witch Trial and Mao Red Guards type stuff.

Who is paying the $10K? The person who got the abortion?

@JLeslies….it WAS the Supreme Court that heard it.

@Dutchess_III They rejected what exactly though? Rejected hearing a case? Or, rejected interfering with the legislation? There wasn’t a case tried in front of them right? I need to read up on it.

@JLeslie The U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday night refused to block a Texas law that amounts to a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
———————————————————————————————————————
A Senate panel has set its sights on the Supreme Court’s increasingly common practice of deciding weighty cases on an emergency basis, a procedure the justices used this week to greenlight Texas’s severe curtailment of abortion access.

Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, announced Friday that the committee would hold a hearing on the court’s so-called shadow docket, which often produces consequential rulings without the justices having received a comprehensive set of paper briefs or hearing oral arguments.

The court recently used the truncated process to rule on significant disputes over immigration policy and federal eviction protections, and to leave intact a new Texas law that bans most abortions in the country’s second-most populous state.
https://thehill.com/regulation/570731-senate-panel-will-probe-supreme-courts-texas-abortion-ruling-shadow-docket

@KNOWITALL Yes, That’s what I had heard “refused to block a law,” but is that the same as saying it’s legal and constitutional forever more and no cases on the matter can be brought before the court?

I wasn’t really aware the Supreme Court could rule on a law like this. I thought states put in laws and they stay in place until someone challenges it in the courts.

I don’t know if the TX law was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade or not. But what it DID do is set a precedent as to when life is considered to start. But what I found interesting about the TX law is that state officials are not allowed to stop abortions after a fetal heartbeat is found. What it DOES do is open up a whole new ability for individuals to sue those that perform the abortions and getting up to $10,000 per abortion if they were performed after a fetal heartbeat was found. Of course there are “emergency” limitations…such as threat of danger to the mother…that allow abortions after the heartbeat is found.

@seawulf575 it is $10,000 per people involved including Uber drivers and anyone that opened a door . . . !

It is purely punitive for anyone involved with a TeJas abortion.

Fright wing hate for women. > > > Keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen!

The new Texas law is terrible, also because (cut and pasted from Texastribune.org): It includes cases where the woman was impregnated as a result of rape or incest. There is an exception for medical emergencies.” So if a girl got fucked by her father or Uncle Joe, too bad, she has to have the baby.

@jca2 Just a question…if the girl got fucked by her father or Uncle Joe, why would it take her more than 6 weeks to decide she didn’t want to keep the baby? And by coming forward with that kind of thing, papa or uncle would be going to jail for rape. Or do you believe that TX really would support characters like that?

@jca2 Good deal. Some inbred idiots to buy in to conservative ideology. I have to wonder where that money from the fines will go. Hmmm…

@seawulf575, very often young girls are not regular with their menses, and maybe don’t know, and are most likely terrified. Your premise that she would just be able to decide something she doesn’t know, and overcome her abject fear about the situation is not even remotely reality based.

@wulfie….many women and girls don’t know they’re pregnant at 6 weeks.
I’m not sure what your comment was about Dad or Uncle Joe going to prison…but that’s another deterrent for a girl to not accept she’s pregnant or to say who caused it.

@seawulf575: You’re operating on the premise that an adolescent girl gets regular periods, keeps track of her periods, wouldn’t be afraid to come foreward and say to someone in authority “Daddy has been fucking me” or “You know that weekend when I went to Uncle Joe’s house? He had sex with me” and then makes an appointment for an abortion and gets the abortion, all within a six week window.

Good point by @Dutchess_III about maybe the girl doesn’t want this person to get in trouble, either.

Also, even if the girl or any woman is on top of keeping track of her periods and they’re very regular, like clockwork, if the period doesn’t come, she has two weeks maximum to get a pregnancy test, make an appointment for an abortion, and get the abortion (which might include getting money to pay for it).

@jca2 I agree – the timing is untenable and that is by design.

There are a myriad of reasons the girl wouldn’t want divulge who the father is. She could have been threatened. The family could turn on her and make out like it’s her fault. She seduced them or some such bullshit.
A parent has to be with her if she’s a minor. Those parameters are untenable.

And with the shit hitting the fan for a certain party, over Jan. 6 this is also a great distraction issue..What insurrection? Shhh be very
quiet, I hear Baby Jesus crying over an abortion.

Ironically, I’m sure Texas hasn’t increased it’s social services budget, which it really should, because there are going to be a lot of babies born now to mothers who can’t afford them, don’t want them so they’ll be neglected or abused, mothers with severe mental illnesses or drug addictions, babies born from cases of incest or rape, babies born with physical issues like Down’s Syndrome or other things, where the mother is forced to have the baby despite tests showing there are major physical and mental issues. Those babies are going to need lots of services (various types of therapy come to mind), public assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, services to keep children out of Foster Care, rehab services, mental health treatment for mothers and children – the list goes on and on.

It will be really interesting to see how things pan out in a few years, when the shit really starts hitting the fan in Texas. When those babies are all born and becoming toddlers and starting preschool. Let’s see if Texas puts their money where their mouth is.

I love all the emotional, irrational claims in this thread. Let’s start looking at facts to see how wildly crazy the argument about needing an abortion because of daddy and uncle Joe really is. To make it clear, you all are acting like this is why all abortions are done, so we will look at it. And to be clear, I am not supporting incest or rapists, just pointing out the flaws in the abortion argument.

In Tx this year, there have been 14824 rapes.

Statistics show that only 34% of rapes are by family members. So now that number is down to 5040.

The percentage of pregnancies that result from rape is 5%. That brings us down to 232.

When pregnancy results from rape, 11.8% result in spontaneous abortions. That would imply that needing an abortion is not required. So now we are down to 222.

And to muddy the waters even more, 95% of those that list rape or incest as a reason for the abortion, listed other reasons as well.

All in all, while I’m not supporting incestuous rapist (they should be castrated in my book), it is emotionally nuts to use that argument for allowing the other 98.5% of abortions to happen. Here’s a thought, how come none of you are looking at responsibility as a way to deter unwanted pregnancies?

AAAAnnnnnddd….cue the attacks on source instead of substance!

@seawulf575 Your second post ” @jca2 Just a question…if the girl got fucked by her father or Uncle Joe, why would it take her more than 6 weeks to decide she didn’t want to keep the baby? And by coming forward with that kind of thing, papa or uncle would be going to jail for rape. Or do you believe that TX really would support characters like that?” is what people were responding to. All your sources and statistics notwithstanding, that post was simply ignorant and egregious.

@seawulf575: My post about social services budget needing to be increased in Texas was not only due to pregnancies from rape or incest, it was in reference to all of the future unwanted pregnancies that will now be to term because of the new law, not just unwanted pregnancies due to rape or incest.

”…only 34% of rapes are by family members.” ONLY????? That’s horrifying.

They are missing a word. Reported. Reported rapes.

@seawulf575 You’re the one who brought up incest and rape. We all know that there are many, many reasons why any woman wouldn’t want a pregnancy. Stop acting like you’re the only rational person in the world. This is really not an issue that you can claim to be the expert on!

@canidmajor And my point is that when @jca2 brought up rape by dad and uncle, it was nothing more than an emotional dodge. And everyone else followed through on it. So my sources and stats were pointing out how down the rabbit hole you have all gone on an emotional dodge.

I think focusing on rape and incest is a distraction that Republicans love. Just like focusing on giving a voter water while waiting on line. It is not the main issue. The main issue is a woman losing control over her body. With voting changes the main issue was changing laws to let the legislature turnover the vote of the people, but voting is another topic not for this thread, I’m just using it as an analogy.

@Dutchess_III As I said, I am not supporting rapists in any way, shape or form. I agree it is horrifying. But it is what @jca2 brought up…rape by a family member. And it was brought up as an emotional shout to derail the entire abortion law discussion. So you have to look at the numbers to put everything into perspective. And if you look at the incest related abortions compared to the total number, it actually comes out to be something like 0.03% of the total number of abortions per year. So yes, to bring up Dad and Uncle Joe in such a dramatic fashion was nothing more than an emotional shout.

@seawulf575 How nice for you that you can so easily dismiss such things. It’s gross and despicable, but it must be nice for you. Even your wording in that post leans toward blaming a child for not reporting and refers to fucking instead of rape.
You are so busy trying to be “right” that you have no sense of what is going on.

That is disgusting and I am out.

@JLeslie I guess the problem I have with the argument of a woman losing control over her body is the question: where were they in the control of their body when they were having unprotected sex? Taking control up front (showing responsibility) would have greatly reduced the number of abortions in the first place. Not to mention it would knock down the 20M STIs that are reported every year, resulting in some $16B in medical costs. Why is it after the fact, after the irresponsible decisions were made, is it suddenly the argument that a woman has control of her body?

@canidmajor I’m merely pointing out that this TX law is going to impact all women because Dad and Uncle Joe are scum. It is an extremely small percentage and really a cheap attempt to deflect from the whole thing. I’m not dismissing rape as a crime, I’ve already stated that numerous times. And I am not victim blaming. But if you insist on how easy it is to dismiss things like this, where is the mother during all this? When her baby shows up pregnant at 14, what then? And if she knew hubby or bro were raping her child, why didn’t she do anything? Why is THAT dismissed? I mean honestly, why are YOU dismissing that? It must be nice for you to be able to ignore all that, isn’t it?

@seawulf575 Wait, so are you ok with exceptions for rape and incest? I might have missed it.

Otherwise, I guess you are on board with punishing the 15 year old for not taking proper precautions to prevent pregnancy and make her have the baby? Or, do under 18 year olds get a juvenile exception?

@JLeslie When did I say I was ok with exceptions for rape or incest? As for the 15 year old not taking proper precautions, are you considering them an adult, in control of her own body, when it comes to abortion? If so, then why are you supporting statutory rape?

@seawulf575 Ok, you are not ok with any exceptions, that’s fine.

Two 15 year olds making a baby is not statutory rape in most states, maybe not in any of them. Doesn’t matter anyway, I am putting rape and incest to the side. Like I said that’s a distraction.

Are you saying age of the girl/woman doesn’t matter, treat them all equally. If pregnant they must carry through with the pregnancy.

34% of family rape is NOT an extremely small percentage @seawulf575.

@Dutchess_III stop trying to deflect from the fact that incestual rape results in an extremely small number of abortions.

@JLeslie I’m saying we need to move the time for accountability to BEFORE the unprotected sex, not after the pregnancy starts. Why is it that we, in this society, fight so hard to ensure abortions can carry on, and at the same time we fight against stopping teenage sex, unprotected sex, and everything else that is irresponsible and leads into abortion? Are you so much a fan of abortion that you want everyone to have a lifestyle that leads to it?

My point for bringing up rape by Dad or Uncle, @seawulf575, was that most laws that are restricting of abortion make exceptions for rape or incest, which is really the kind thing to do, when you think about the ramifications of having a baby born from rape or incest. However, the new Texas law does not make exception for pregnancies from rape or incest. So it’s got nothing to do with me tugging on heartstrings, it’s got to do with me pointing out that this law is really draconian and extra-awful.

@jca2 So back to the original question, do you believe this law is the first step towards overturning Roe v Wade? Forget what you don’t like about this particular law. It is likely there will be legal challenges to this law anyway and it is likely that some exceptions will be put into place. And it might be that the good people of TX will prompt their state reps to add some. But do you believe this is the first step towards undoing RvW?

jca2 And a vote getter and distraction for Republicans. Which I am 100 % convinced that this is really what thos move is all about.

@seawulf575: To @canidmajor you say: __“But if you insist on how easy it is to dismiss things like this, where is the mother during all this? When her baby shows up pregnant at 14, what then? And if she knew hubby or bro were raping her child, why didn’t she do anything? Why is THAT dismissed? I mean honestly, why are YOU dismissing that? It must be nice for you to be able to ignore all that, isn’t it?“__ are you really assuming that mothers whose daughters are victims of incest, they know it’s happening? Because that’s what it seems like you’re saying, but I find it hard to believe that you really think that. Not impossible to believe that you think that, but difficult for me to believe you really are so naive.

I would guess the abortion stats for incest are misleading low. That’s one crime most kids wouldn’t want to report.

@jca2 I would think that when a young teen turns up pregnant, they certainly would know something was happening then. And I have known pedophiles who raped their stepdaughters. The mothers were pretty oblivious and even when the child came forward they didn’t want to believe them. So yes, I know that happens and I know that sometimes the mothers are enablers whether purposely or not.

@seawulf575 Jeeze! In that particular response she also brought up poverty, mental illness, drug addiction and physical issues like Down’s Syndrome. You’re the one who picked incest and rape out of her entire post and used it as an emotional shout to derail the abortion law discussion.

@smudges It is called “using loaded words to derail” ! !

@smudges and how many times have you fine folks nit picked one word or phrase from my comments? Grow up.

Oh! And @smudges? You are completely WRONG. Here is the comment that started the entire incest discussion…copied in its entirety:

_”
The new Texas law is terrible, also because (cut and pasted from Texastribune.org): It includes cases where the woman was impregnated as a result of rape or incest. There is an exception for medical emergencies.” So if a girl got fucked by her father or Uncle Joe, too bad, she has to have the baby.“_

So where in that comment did she mention poverty, mental illness, drug addiction or physical issues like Down’s Syndrome? Oh yeah…she didn’t. So why are you lying about it now?

@seawulf575: This is my comment, which is right directly above your comment about how you love all the irrational claims in this thread. Scroll through and you will find it. Here it is, cut and pasted in it’s entirety. I think you owe @smudges an apology for calling her a liar when she wasn’t lying.

Read on:
Ironically, I’m sure Texas hasn’t increased it’s social services budget, which it really should, because there are going to be a lot of babies born now to mothers who can’t afford them, don’t want them so they’ll be neglected or abused, mothers with severe mental illnesses or drug addictions, babies born from cases of incest or rape, babies born with physical issues like Down’s Syndrome or other things, where the mother is forced to have the baby despite tests showing there are major physical and mental issues. Those babies are going to need lots of services (various types of therapy come to mind), public assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, services to keep children out of Foster Care, rehab services, mental health treatment for mothers and children – the list goes on and on.

It will be really interesting to see how things pan out in a few years, when the shit really starts hitting the fan in Texas. When those babies are all born and becoming toddlers and starting preschool. Let’s see if Texas puts their money where their mouth is.

@jca2 Go back farther, darlin’. You posted the one I cited in my last post well before the one you are citing now. And so when @smudges tells me I pulled rape and incest out of your post, it is a lie. YOU were the one that started focusing on rape and incest, not me. I responded to YOUR post that was solely referencing rape and incest. The fact that she wants to pull something out of the middle of the conversation (as you do too, apparently) and act like that is where I started talking about rape and incest is extremely disingenuous. And for you to support her is likewise disingenuous.

@seawulf575: You told @smudges that my post didn’t mention poverty, mental illness, etc. and my post did mention those things (as I just cut and pasted to you). Therefore, calling her a liar was inaccurate.

@jca2 Go back up and look where rape and incest were first mentioned. @smudges said I was the one that jumped on those from your latter post. That is grossly inaccurate. And you know it. You are being grossly deceptive right now. You even posted later to me, after I initially started talking about your INITIAL comment concerning rape and incest. In one of those posts you tried justifying why you brought it up. So yeah, you know you opened that door and you know that is where I started talking about it. So trying to defend @smudges is just slimy.

And, if you look at the post right after the one where you talked about social services, you will notice I was not addressing you specifically. There were quite a few comments, all dealing with rape and incest that were offshoots of your initial one. So my comment after your social services comment was addressing all of those. That is why it started with “I love all the emotional, irrational claims in this thread. Let’s start looking at facts to see how wildly crazy the argument about needing an abortion because of daddy and uncle Joe really is.”

@seawulf575: I feel like we’re going around and around in circles (“look at this post where you said _____”, “no, it’s above that post where you said_____”), and are both going to turn into butter.

In the big scheme of things, none of this “he said, she said” “who said what first” matters. You and I could both spend an hour defending ourselves and scrolling up to see who wrote what when. None of that matters. What matters is that the law is fucked up, is hurting women and children, can’t be defended, and puts women back into the Dark Ages.

No. The hysteria is amazing to me.

I asked a very smart lawyer friend of mine about the Texas law and if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Here’s what he replied:

A qualified yes. In simplest terms, It held it was too soon to rule on the merits of the statute. The majority, i.e., the Court, specifically stated that this ruling is not at all a comment on whether the statute is constitutional. And that means Roe v Wade is still the law in all 50 states, and no Texas statute can change that.