The Supreme Court has finally bestirred itself to issue a ruling on the Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect last night, and long story short, they allowed it to take effect. The vote was 5-4, with John Roberts plus the three liberals dissenting.
A bit of background: The intent of the Texas law is to prohibit abortions after six weeks. However, it's obviously contrary to law for a state to do this, so instead the legislature delegated enforcement of the law to private citizens, who can file lawsuits against anyone who performs or "abets" an abortion after six weeks. In a way, this is not a new approach: many laws have "citizen attorney general" provisions that allow private attorneys to sue for enforcement. However, these laws are constitutional in the first place and the state can enforce them whenever it wishes to; allowing citizen lawsuits is merely a convenient way of expanding enforcement activities. By contrast, delegating this power entirely to citizens solely because the state is forbidden to enforce the law itself is a playground level gambit: "Ha ha, you can't sue us because we're not the ones enforcing the law." As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her blistering dissent, this is little more than half-witted game playing by the state of Texas:
The Act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents....The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law. The Texas Legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the Legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not.
....Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined to act because, in short, the State’s gambit worked. The structure of the State’s scheme, the Court reasons, raises “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that counsel against granting the application, just as the State intended. This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.
In essence, the Texas legislature threw up a bunch of chaff that made the law complex and novel for no real reason, and the Supreme Court then rewarded them by saying that it had to withhold judgment because there were so many complex and novel provisions to consider.
All of this was done on the Court's infamous "shadow docket," which permits brief, unsigned rulings without normal hearings. Justice Elena Kagan had this to say:
Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. I respectfully dissent.
Needless to say, this law will eventually wend its way through the court system and end up in the Supreme Court for a traditional hearing, possibly joined with other similar laws. At that point, the Court will have an opportunity to reconsider Roe v. Wade and either confirm or overturn it. In the meantime, no one is performing abortions in Texas and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
It's more dialectical nonsense. If the Republican party collapses in Texas, whelp, this waste of a law will be another stone.
Collapses?? How many ways do they have to sabotage democracy before you get it? How many billionaires need prop them up? How much State Religion do you need, before you understand what Fascism looks like?
It doesn't "collapse". It needs killing- in the political sense.
Where do you get the delusion that the Texas GQP will collapse anytime soon? As it stands now it will be a good fifty years before that might be possible, assuming CWII doesnt kick off before then...
They are already decaying fool. Many 90's shifters to Bushco have been bailing the party for a decade. Losing faith in supply side economics has been the driver. You need to stop posting. Your a retard.
Except the constant legal f***ery the GQP have engaged in to destroy the Democratic Party has been extremely successful, especially in Texas.
For someone pretending to know everything, you do show a remarkable lack of knowledge...
It's just a troll. What can you expect?
"Your [sic] a retard."
heh
didactical
They'll probably overrule Roe via a different, more straightforward case, then rule against this "novel" trick law.
Got it in one.
... Get in the hole!
Texas turns blue for sure.
Greatest gift to the Democratic party since kids in cages.
Women’s’ March? You ain’t seen nothin yet.
Till It turns blue, I’m staying away from Texas. Too many intellectually corrupt leaders, too many hot headed fools packing unlicensed guns, too many unvaccinated COVID carriers.
I have determined that I will no longer travel to any of the states that continue to put pieces of shit in power. Fortunately, I've already seen most of what those states have to offer and I have no desire to visit any of them.
This is a nice thought, but it's at best whistling past the graveyard, and at worst delusional. Texas is unlikely to go blue because abortion is restricted--Texans by and large *want* abortion to be restricted.
This is just as likely to cement Texas's vermillion hue, as now any democrat trying to seek Texas office will be tarred as trying to bring back abortion.
This post is dead. It was how they went about it, which will hurt. It was dumb. It won't bring more votes fool.
No, opinion polls in Texas say a majority of both women and men think abortion laws should stay the same or be less restrictive. Google it.
Opinion polls may say that, but voter behavior certainly doesn't.
Republicans hold the House and Senate, so that gives them much power. But it's closer than you might think, and the gap has been closing.
Texas House is:
66 Democrats
82 Republicans
Texas Senate is:
13 Democrats
18 Republicans
Does this mean that a State could ban the sale of firearms using similar language?
Or can a private citizen sue Trump & family for tax evasion?
Why not? Apparently everbody's got standing to sue people who do things they don't like now.
haha, good point. But really, it seems the same.
Given all that's happened recently, I think we're about to see massive, vocal, angry protests starting tomorrow, especially at the homes around the five justices and outside SCOTUS.
Any Trump voter who complains about this, and some who voted to stop Hillary will complain, should be struck with something heavy.
Trump voters voted for this. It’s exactly what they wanted. It’s the Bernie or Bust people who didn’t vote for Clinton in 2016 who have no room to complain.
Why are you obsessed with assigning blame to people wanting better than a discount Republican, rather than accept the fact that the discount Republicans campaign failed?
Did your parents teach you poor sportsmanship, or did you take it up to spite them?
Mrs. Clinton made it quite clear to all and sundry that liberals would not be supported by her hypothetical Administration, and yet you are dumbfounded by the fact that this drove liberals from supporting her. By any real measure, its Clinton supporters who should feel shame for losing RGB's seat, for supporting such an obvious failure of a campaign.
"Why are you obsessed with assigning blame to people wanting better than a discount Republican, rather than accept the fact that the discount Republicans campaign failed?"
Because any idiot who thinks Clinton was a discount Republican and that is why they stayed at home or voted Trump (or anyone else) should forever be reminded that they helped to put him in office and every tragedy, crime, abuse, and consequence of his actions should weigh in their conscience.
Yes, how dare I have an opinion of my own, I should mindlessly worship the same Idols you do, right?
Did you even bother to pay attention to the 2016 primaries?, I did.
Why are you obsessed with assigning blame to people wanting better than a discount Republican
Hillary Clinton most assuredly would not have appointed Supreme Court justices seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'd say that makes her very different indeed from a Republican, discounted or full price.
So yes, people who supported one of her opponents in the general election or who stayed home did indeed contribute to this outcome. Sure the vast majority of such people were rightists and Trump-supporting conservatives. But a non-trivial number were left-of-center societal vandals like you.
So you demand I get f**ed over because Clinton might, hypothetically, choose a halfway-decent shyster to the SCotUS should a spot open up?
You're better off demanding that I vote straight Republican, and declare women property. You'd at least be stripping out the middleman and "well I fought the good fight" nonsense we currently are struggling through.
I wanted better than that. Im not sorry, nor feel shame that I refused to sacrifice my principles and beliefs for a candidate that made it clear she had no desire for my support or my vote, and offered no valid reasons to give her either.
But you go ahead and desperately try to find excuses for failing utterly in 2016. You gave Trump the Presidency, and trying to pass the buck only underlines the current problems in America.
“You're better off demanding that I vote straight Republican, and declare women property.”
You did.
Nope. Thats what you demanded of me. I simply ignored your demands.
Also, Id suggest you return to grade school for a civics course or three, elections don't work the way you pretend they do.
"I refused to sacrifice my principles and beliefs "
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Heh. Well said.
Yeah, those without principles often dont understand how or why some people have them; And since Ive chose a different nom-de-plume to reflect my current, more cynical political outlook, you probably dont have much idea of my beliefs, do you?
Lets just say Im not a right-wing conservative like most people here, ok?
Lets just say Im not a right-wing conservative like most people here, ok?
You just like them in power. Hope all your female relatives know about your lofty principles.
“ In the meantime, no one is performing abortions in Texas and there's nothing anyone can do about it.”
Oh, there will be abortions performed in Texas. They just won’t be performed by doctors in safe, sterile settings. (Gawd I’m so damn glad I got out of that state.)
Sadly all too true.
As Black Nasty rapped c. 2005, "Get up on your head like a hanger on a foetus. Give the high five. Motherfuck Jesus".
What if some abortion provider in Texas said, in effect, "This is bullshit. We're open for business." They wouldn't have any trouble finding either legal talent or money to defend their position would they?
The issue isn't just for the doctor's (even if you assume they have the time and resources to go to court), but the fact that this law makes it possible for anyone to be the target of a lawsuit. Family members, friends, drivers, nurses, janitors, accountants, maintenance workers, medical suppliers, etc.
Any person that a wingunt considers to have played a role in the procedure is a potential target.
How many kooks in TX? Each one can sue. And get their legal expenses paid.
What proportion of abortion providers do you think would make that calculus? Half? A quarter? One in ten? One in a hundred?
If the state empowered random yahoos to sue you for doing your job, would you choose a lifetime of litigation and potential financial ruin or would you choose to just move into an adjacent field (or an adjacent state)?
The point isn't that some non-zero number of abortion providers *might* stick it out, the point is that the ability of people to obtain what is their constitutional right is being severely curtailed.
Even Roberts joined the dissent. That tells you who should not be on SCOTUS. Or that the court should be packed to outnumber them.
The Federalist Society’s best and brightest lawyers picked to serve on the highest court of the land: “WAAAAA! The laws sooo complicated we can’t understand it. In the mean while we had better do nothing till we figure it out”. The legal equivalent of “the dog ate my homework” argument.
Texas' new state flag,
https://imgur.com/gallery/aYThXF6
All excellent points,
https://imgur.com/gallery/HxbGCov
if wingnuts were serious about it.
But they're not. Their serious interest is harming and degrading women.
On please. Who hasn't degraded women. The "left" viewed women as collective property. Who doesn't "degrade women"??? Keep on making these retarded posts. I would love to degrade "their" women and then some.
Does Mommy know that you're surfing adult sites again?
What century are you deluding yourself into believing it is?
"The "left" viewed women as collective property." is utter nonsense, given its at least two centuries out of date. If youre going to cling to whataboutisms, maybe youre better off not posting?
Don't bother replying to the troll. He is a racist and mysoginist (and all around bigot) who when he isn't attacking someone he is calling everything "nonsensense" or a some kind of made up problem.
I'm curious. I've been watching this little nutjob for ages, and finally broke down and created an account. Looking back it was a dumb impulse, but not for jousting with this little cretin.
Lolz, are you a retard. You need to be nostril ripped. If your that ignorant of post-monarchies, you need driven from nature. 200 years of historical data says yes, left wing populism believed women were collective property. Educate yourself idiot.
Considering I enjoy reading history, if find your idiotic attempt ad ad hominem gibbering comedy gold.
Yes, full female sufferage is moderately recent addition to liberal thought(beginning in the mid 19th century), but the idea that women arent property is a bit different, and goes back farther.
Let me offer you a tip, young troll. Stating gibbering lunacy and then screaming personal attacks wins you nothing but scorn and derision. To win you need facts on your side, a lacking you consistantly show.
...as noted, your daughter or son or nephew or niece living in Texas calls you their father/uncle living in CA or OH asking for advice over a pregnancy, you give requested advice orally or via written text or email, this is conveyed to Aunt Tilly in Tennessee who has vengeful friends in Texas (note, no abortion need have actually occurred):
Bounty hunter sues you in Texas Court, there is either the written proof of an email or a text, as well as the testimony of Aunt Tilly whose oral proffer is perfectly fine as proof, and if you don't respond a default judgment is entered or you defend it and loose, (there is always that damning testimony of Aunt Tilly), and so kicks in the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution
"Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another..."
**************
Fun Times people!
Any Texas Court Judgment must be respected by a CA court to the same degree as any CA Court Judgment would be, and be similarly enforceable (meaning: CA Sheriffs seizing CA bank accounts, putting liens on your property, installing a keeper in your business to gather any income that might be coming in).
Brave New World Indeed!
Best Wishes, Traveller
Traveller
Leaving aside the hysteria, I rather suspect the foolish Christianists have scored an own-goal in long-run terms in this law. By its strange over-reaching and potential extra-territorialism as noted above. It seems likely to provoke liberal reaction (here meaning centre and centre-Left and Left) and benefit in political motivation.
Odd the Southerners long-term habits, as it does so remind one of the legal gambits around preservation of another peculiar institution.
Eh, nope. You need a pinkie snap for this post. That pelicular institutional issue was economic and frankly was already dead. This is political correctness. Something they probably don't want to admit.
No, this is a combination of State Religion vs. dumbass undermining of actual law enforcement and the Civil Court system.
Wow, that makes no sense, attempting to pretend the legal antics to protect the South's Peculiar Institution don't matter because one was socio-economic in nature and the other is...socio-economic.
If you're going to troll, Spade, please find a more competant scriptwriter, please?
You are such a idiot. Do you understand the basis of what your talking about doesn't matter?I Your a moron in sheep's clothing. Down the fingers I will go. When will the pain be great enough for you to learn.
Ok, are the words you're stringing together actually supposed to mean anything, or are you hoping that drowning me in ad hominems and nonsensical gibberish will hide the fact that you don't actually have an argument to defend your defense of vile cruelties that are unconstitutional?
Why do you think the Texas GQP went out of its way these last few months to rewrite the state Voting Laws? Te deliberately disenfranchise those that would work to overturn these vile laws.
Rewriting voting laws to nowhere. It did nothing.
Disenfranchising millions of legal residents is "getting nowhere" to you?
Well, true, Im sure that some Democrats will find ways to make their vote heard, so for a witless troll such as yourself, that might meet the definition of " did nothing"?
When those laws don't do shit, I am going to laugh in Your face. Retard.
Kevin, I know you read the comments. Poster Spadesofgrey is clearly a troll. Mostly stupid and harmless until now. Lots of fairly nasty personal attacks today. Name calling is not acceptable on any commenting platform. Perhaps you can have him/her removed from your site.
Or, you know, we could all ignore him. I do.
The people of Texas are happy to suffer and die in the winter cold without electricity. They are happy to see the COVID hoax kill and sicken thousands. They are happy to build the wall and harass migrants. They are happy to send their kids to die in Afghanistan or some other hellhole overseas for revenge. And they are surely happy to see abortion banned while leaving all the disabled and unwanted kids to suffer miserable lives.
It sounds like an awful place to me, but I don't live there. The people of Texas are happy with this state of affairs and so they re-elect the freak show candidates to office. I'm not sure I can be bothered to care what they do to each other.
Reliance on the Supreme Court or some other federal mechanism to secure abortion rights is no longer an option. They know you won't fight now. They are emboldened and they aren't going to stop until you... stop them.
Stop what?? They ain't stopping anything. Killing them is fun. Right to their globalist con financiers to general "fake" churches. All cons of the monied elite. Mass bombings. Capital markets collapsing. The Federal army disbanded. Nuclear weapons should not be rejected.
You forget to take your meds?
That's painting with very broad brush strokes. Many state-wide elections have been very close indeed in recent cycles, ie, 52-48 territory. So, it's not "Texas" voting for such outcomes, really, it's half (or often less) of Texas doing so. And sometimes it's not even a plurality, given the highly anti-democratic nature of that state's system of voting and representation. Indeed, to a very great degree, Texas just mirrors the country as a whole in this regard: a powerful, authoritarian-minded minority exerting its will over society as a whole.
Thank you. Sheesh!
"The people of Texas are ..."
Do you stereotype other groups of people like this? What do you say about Black people and Jews?
Look on the bright side: Conservatives and Texas just pointed the way to Liberals to bypass SCOTUS jurisdiction on 2A. Here come laws banning gun ownership, amirite?
Like anybody cares about gun ownership. Post better.
Nobody cares about guns- only the idiots who carry them. And Texas just decided that ALL idiots should carry them, everywhere.
Except the NRA national convention, which was cancelled.
Actually lots of people in the USA care about guns.... a strangely willfully stupid and blind assertion. Their obsession over guns one can easily agree is irrational and borders on lunacy, but it certainly does exist and is a major driver of voting in the USA in certain regions / sub-regions.
Blithely dismissing is a path to losing.
And in Texas you can use a gun along with stand your ground to stop someone from raping you.
Interestingly stupid assertion, given how much money Republicans make yearly by ginning up fears and insanity with "(insert Democrat here) is coming for your gunz!!! But if you donate $50.00 to (insert GQP scam fund heres) I will fight to stop them!" Campaigns. Its a perennial moneymaker for the GQP, among other, less savory groups, such as The Proud Boys and 3%ers...
To the extent that I think SCOTUS will come to realize what they've actually done, one can only assert satire in response to what is interpreted cynically as foolish action.
To the extent that I am clear-eyed to what SCOTUS has actually done, I think you're stuck in the old paradox, and one must take the opportunity to eliminate everything conservatives have tried to protect.
Can you use the TX law as written? It seems written to promote abuse of the legal system.
I mean to abuse the legal system in light of the green light given by the conservatives of the Supreme Court.
They brought this mockery of the system they ostensibly held in high regard, did they not?
Not.only are abortions being performed, but business is getting better everyday.
On yeah, pills sold on the market will surge as well. Don't need a clean sterile place.
Yes, obviously Planned Parenthood is only out for "shareholder value".
Wow, I think you proved not only stupid, but utterly ignorant about whats happening in Texas, Spade. Business isn't "getting better" in Texas, as seen by the constant decline in services provided as Texas slowly work to redefine Women as property.
Lolz, you know what the black market is retard, don't you. Please stop posting. You are simply subhuman trash like Republicans.
There is no "black market" for abortions, yet, hell, there is currently only barely a "grey market", and anti-women lunatics like yourself are hard at work crushing that.
Oh, and you projecting only amuses me.
Lolz, yes there is. Right now fool. Not everybody wants to know the or their baby mama had "one".
"Lolz, yes there is. Right now fool. Not everybody wants to know the or their baby mama had "one"."
Ok, this makes absolutely no sense, in any fashion. To refute my argument, you must actively prove my argument false, not take another stupid pill and rant nonsensically. Please cite raids of back ally 'clinics' or injury rates to coathangers.
Let's also note a secondary element of this law. Conservative judges have spent the last several decades dramatically narrowing the scope of standing, in order to prevent anyone from suing corporations. And then, here, they decide that standing should be universal, no need to demonstrate that the plaintiff has been in any way harmed by the actions. Purely from a standpoint of conservative legal theory, this law is a farce, demonstrating that conservatives have no legal principles, and only see the law as a tool for getting their way.
+1
... and the last shred of credibility of the high court is GONE- which is the only reason that Roberts dissented, of course: his legacy.
This law is blatantly un-Constitutonal- not from precedent, but because Texas has legally established a State Religion.
The fact that Texas just paved the way to utterly crash our legal system by financially incentivizing private citizens (and organized churches and NGO's) to sue other citizens to enforce state law that the state is NOT enforcing, is utter insanity, and ONCE AGAIN completely lost on the GOP what a destructive precedent this is.
I can't decide what makes Republicans more dangerous: their utter corruption or their jaw-dropping stupidity.
Bingo. Once again, we see the only "principle" left in modern American Conservatism:
HYPOCRISY.
DISCLAIMER - I am male, old, Catholic. Father of 3 women, grandfather to one woman. They've all had pre marital sex, all are non religious, done drugs, and I love them all. I am personally against abortion but do not IMPOSE that belief on any one.
Females outnumber males in the US and have for DECADES. They out voted males in the 2020 election
But look back at history
The ERA passed with a bipartisan Senate vote over 50 years ago. This constitutional amendment has taken over 50 years to get the required 38 states to approve the ERA. Virginia approved it just this past January well outside the time limit set in the legislation. In those 50 years 5 states have rescinded their approval vote.
Some figures put abortions at 862,000 in 2017 for women aged 15 to 44. How many of those women vote? Those under 18 can't.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-texas
I get it. Polling shows the majority of Americans want to maintain Roe vs Wade.
So here's a question. How solid is this subject?
How many women will join the outrage and march in Washington?
How many would storm the Capital building over it?
Given the umber of women in this country I would think that if the subject were THAT IMPORTANT to them that the 5 million woman advantage in numbers would translate into votes for pro abortion candidates.
Sorry but we can't pass the ERA in 50 years with a female majority in this country. WE can;t elect pro abortion candidates in Texas
This is a losing issue for DEMs it seems. NEED for abortion is on the decline.
If we are reading the tea leaves correctly women elected Joe Biden, they also elected Greg Abbott and the MAJORITY of voters in this country cannot get the ERA passed.
Is it apathy? If so it falls on females. Or did we read the tea leaves wrong? Are they willing to change their vote based upon abortion being "the" issue?
History says no.
Is the outrage being exhibited here faux outrage? There are 164 million females in this country give or take. In 2017 862,000 abortions were performed according to the link above.
Are women abortion centric? Or not?
Abortion centric? Not really--no need.
"Pro-abortion"? No one wants to have an abortion because they are so much fun.
The question is, should women be forced to bear children against their will.
golack-
Doesn't matter how you frame the question
If you have the MAJORITY of voters in this country - why is this even an issue? They've had the majority since the 50s?
There is a majority female population in Texas (barely) yet they elect people who are anti abortion.
I know that females are the ONLY gender in our species that can bear the children - none of us can control that.
So what can we control? Permission to have sex in the first place? Make birth control a male purview only? (good luck with that).
But given the make up of our voting population it appears as though enough women are against abortion to vote in people of similar beliefs.
Have we mis-read the polls? Why have the majority capitulated on the ERA? Women wield an awfully big stick given their majority in this country
Nancy Pelosi knows how to use the stick. It appears as though ordinary female voters and pollsters do not.
It is a terrible political issue and not a good one for DEM women, or men, to run on - so it seems.
Show me a march on Washington with 500,000 in attendance supporting abortion. Show me passage of the ERA. Show me you can vote so that we can have the "nice things" that other countries have. Is it apathy?
Change is happening but not on the fronts some of us may want.
Is the messaging bad? Are the polls asking the wrong questions? Are people LYING to pollsters?
We have seen posts at MJ, and this blog for YEARS saying that Roe would go away. It will happen because those that are energized by it seem to be winning the battle in the voting booths
You do realize that Texas is heavily gerrymandered and so arguing that any majority of Texans actually support this vile nonsense is adorably ludicrous, right?
Lolz, not gerrymandered enough. You still don't get it.
does not explain the failed ERA does it?
does NOT explain Ted Cruz nor John Cornyn in statewide elections
yes I agree Texas is gerrymandering so locally they could make abortion illegal in Texas
this is not a good subject to run on for DEMs. and it affects far fewer voters.
The consequences for female Texas voters will probably become more salient when they find out they can’t get a doctor to touch them between week 6-36 of their pregnancies, for fear of accidentally triggering an abortion. That’s when it became real enough for Ireland’s voters to legalize abortion: several high profile news stories about pregnant women dying for lack of medical care because the hospitals/doctors wouldn’t treat them and risk running afoul of the abortion ban.
"does not explain the failed ERA does it?
does NOT explain Ted Cruz nor John Cornyn in statewide elections
yes I agree Texas is gerrymandering so locally they could make abortion illegal in Texas
this is not a good subject to run on for DEMs. and it affects far fewer voters"
Yeah, I thought using "gerrymandering" as a catch-all for all the electoral shenanigans the GQP routinely engage in would be enough, but if one is desperate to hand-wave, one will find a way.
Republican Senatorial Candidates win because the GQP has engaged in a thirty year effort to limit the right to vote to the Republican faithful... as anyone with moderate interest in American Politics can easily discover.
Considering women outnumber men and have for almost he whole century and they outvote men in every general election since 1984 tells me women may have misplaced priorities - or have over blown the abortion issue
So, lets ask a question here.
Would women, particularly DEM Women, give up the majority in the senate to keep Roe?
Imagine if you will a runoff in Georgia with Raphael Warnock - yes REVEREND Raphael Warnock running. Control of the Senate hinges on his win
His support for abortion has been luke warm, at best. He represents a STATE that is decidedly conservative and FULL of bat shit crazy republicans.
Would women vote for him if he came out against abortion at that point?
Again the numbers of abortions performed points to the fact it is an UN-important issue, and losing in its importance year over year. IF abortion were the determining factor Warnock loses right now
DEMs need a D+4 advantage to get things done in the senate. The GOP is rudderless without their advantage after losing 3 seats in 2020.
An issue like abortion can stop that D momentum swing in its tracks and return the R to controlling the senate.
Considering men push abortions, your point is dead.
I hate to do this, but I think that Vog46 has a point...the naked word "Abortion," is a poor political look for Democrats.
There has to be a certain caution here: Woman's Reproduction Rights are all that we are talking about...her right to control her own physical being.
Abortion may be part of this, but it is not what we are really talking about....Woman's Rights, that's all, not abortion.
This is the way this must be framed.
Best Wishes, Traveller
No, the question is: at what point in a pregnancy should women no longer be allowed to have the developing human inside of them killed?
80% of Americans agree that after viability that abortion should not be allowed. After viability you are basically killing a baby.
Well the dog finally caught the car with abortion politics in Texas. Will this be the beginning of a major blowback against Republicans' attempts to kill abortion rights with a thousand cuts? Or will the fact that this largely affects only poorer women (esp women of color) mean that as long as women with more financial resources continue to have access to abortion services out of state or via medical prescription voters really won't care?
Abortion is irrelevant. It's the unconstitutional way they went about it. It's where the blowback will come from.
Well, the SCOTUS majority didn't say that it was egregiously unconstitutional on its face, so it's entirely possible that they will still greenlight this.
'It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.'
The GOP is so stupid, so short-sighted, that they actually think that this is a good idea....
It seems that the gov and courts of Texas don't want to make any decisions where they will be held responsible. Sort of a kangaroo court if you will. They drop kicked important decisions to the public and to the supremes. Hopefully the supremes will get on this asap and vote it down. Unfortunately, not with this bunch. Time to add more blues to the supremes and find democracy.
Sadly, the SCotUS just tacitly defended the law
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2021/09/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court/
This new law is going to be a tremendous boon to Texas-based employers trying to recruit professional women.
Hmm. Low taxes and regulation vs. rights of female employees. I think we know which one corporations are going to give a crap about in the end.
Taxes may be low on corporations, but they aren't that low on people here in Texas. Which is more relevant to Jasper's point: this law hurts Texas's ability to hang onto and/or recruit professional women.
If the Texas law stands then any state can use a virtually identical law to ban the sale and ownership of firearms. In fact, some state should immediately pass just such a law and then we'll see how long the Court will continue to uphold such approaches to overturning constitutional rights.
So much for the spitballing in https://jabberwocking.com/what-do-we-do-if-roe-is-overturned/ then?
Sure there’s something that can be done about it.
Give those GOP bastards the Mussolini treatment. After about ten of them get it, I bet they’ll be changing that law right quick.
All in favor of belatedly returning Tejas to its rightful country, Mejico, speak now.
Beto & friends can come into los EEUU; we don't need more of the toxic-masculinity crowd. There are a couple of those right here on jabberwocky.
Gunlaws time. How many stores will sell guns if anyone can sue them if they suspect they are selling firearms illegally?
Remember when there was no difference between Hillary and Trump?
Good times.
Bye bye Roe.
That's what I thought when I saw Chris Hayes tweeting about this law.
He & Ryan Lizza told us El Jefe ran to Hillary's left on so many fronts.