SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

#351
#351
AshG said:
If the unborn child has implanted in a fallopian tube, then it will rupture the tube as it grows and kill both mother and child. Limiting procedures with a hard cap of present heartbeat puts doctors and hospitals in very tight legal spots where saving the mother's life may mean violating the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
Now wait, how often is this an issue in 2021?

Also, would you necessarily have to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life?
 
#352
#352
AshG said:
Had a good chat with my wife about this topic last night. She had a wrinkle I hadn't considered.

When a pregnant woman in a marginalized or underserved group is constantly bombarded with messaging about how their children are drains on others' tax dollars, how they just grow up to be junkies or gang bangers, how their lives are worth less because there may not be a father around, etc, it creates a greater desire to end pregnancies. Being told your future child is a failure before they're even born does not inspire people to try harder, it shuts them down and makes them want to end the shame however possible.
Click to expand...
That ain't gonna fly with me. See, that sounds like some white liberal guilt tripping. That isn't helping the situation because it doesn't hold the women accountable for the choices they make. There are all kinds of contraceptions that are available to prevent the pregnancy. Then you have the morning after pill. Then there is accountability with regards who you allow in between your legs. Obviously, the man nowadays is going to be held accountable, but there isn't any measures in place to hold the gatekeeper of sex jus as accountable.

With regards to the highlighted above, the Texas law draws the line at the time a baby has a heartbeat. So you telling me that between conception and the time a baby has a heartbeat that all of a sudden the guy is out of the picture? We can judge the guy and call him trash, but what does that say about the woman and her mate selection?
 
#353
#353
Rasputin_Vol said:
He's getting on you about the label "pro-life". We all know that "pro-life" is associated with "anti-abortion", but looks like he is being a stickler about labeling.
Click to expand...

I am and going a little overboard with it. BUT I do find it hypocritical to call oneself pro-life while supporting the death penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CardsNVols and DuckInAPen
#356
#356
Interesting discussion this morning as to the means by which this was done, so as to leave state actors out of it and make it harder to challenge.

Put aside for the moment the substance of it, i.e. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. That's its own discussion.

What they did here to bypass the normal paths for legal challenges is to not have state officials implementing a law. Rather, they created a right of action for private individuals to sue and collect a bounty whenever a standard was violated. Pretty clever. No way to directly sue the government for this (at least immediately).

But think about this mechanism on a broader scale. Does this mean that a state can create a private cause of action for me, as a random citizen, to sue a gun manufacturer for making a gun that violates some standard I might impose? Can a private citizen sue the police in their hometown and collect a bounty because an officer arrested someone else under dubious circumstances?

There are a lot of ways this mechanism can be abused the other way, too.

I personally think there are standing issues here. While traditionally the legislative branch can create standing by statute, there might be a limit to that and we might see it here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, Matt2496, RikidyBones and 1 other person
#357
#357
Rasputin_Vol said:
Now wait, how often is this an issue in 2021?

Also, would you necessarily have to kill the baby in order to save the mother's life?
Click to expand...
That’s a discussion that only involves the parents and their doctors and nobody else. However trying to parse situations like that and feather them into desire to overall restrict abortion isn’t a good look. That’s as bad as the other extreme of unrestricted abortion.
 
#358
#358
lawgator1 said:
Interesting discussion this morning as to the means by which this was done, so as to leave state actors out of it and make it harder to challenge.

Put aside for the moment the substance of it, i.e. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. That's its own discussion.

What they did here to bypass the normal paths for legal challenges is to not have state officials implementing a law. Rather, they created a right of action for private individuals to sue and collect a bounty whenever a standard was violated. Pretty clever. No way to directly sue the government for this (at least immediately).

But think about this mechanism on a broader scale. Does this mean that a state can create a private cause of action for me, as a random citizen, to sue a gun manufacturer for making a gun that violates some standard I might impose? Can a private citizen sue the police in their hometown and collect a bounty because an officer arrested someone else under dubious circumstances?

There are a lot of ways this mechanism can be abused the other way, too.

I personally think there are standing issues here. While traditionally the legislative branch can create standing by statute, there might be a limit to that and we might see it here.
Click to expand...
I think it’s going to ultimately get struck down. I find it hard to believe the state cannot be held accountable for the laws on its books. I also struggle to see how a completely disinterested party has monetized damages resulting from a stranger’s decision to get an abortion.

I am intrigued on the angle of this enabling family members, specifically the male, in being able to likely successfully show harm by this law.
 
#359
#359
lawgator1 said:
Interesting discussion this morning as to the means by which this was done, so as to leave state actors out of it and make it harder to challenge.

Put aside for the moment the substance of it, i.e. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. That's its own discussion.

What they did here to bypass the normal paths for legal challenges is to not have state officials implementing a law. Rather, they created a right of action for private individuals to sue and collect a bounty whenever a standard was violated. Pretty clever. No way to directly sue the government for this (at least immediately).

But think about this mechanism on a broader scale. Does this mean that a state can create a private cause of action for me, as a random citizen, to sue a gun manufacturer for making a gun that violates some standard I might impose? Can a private citizen sue the police in their hometown and collect a bounty because an officer arrested someone else under dubious circumstances?

There are a lot of ways this mechanism can be abused the other way, too.

I personally think there are standing issues here. While traditionally the legislative branch can create standing by statute, there might be a limit to that and we might see it here.
Click to expand...

This is one of the few things we agree on. I think this law is beyond terrible and it will open up other states to use this method for even more nefarious purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and volfanhill
#360
#360
hog88 said:
This is one of the few things we agree on. I think this law is beyond terrible and it will open up other states to use this method for even more nefarious purposes.
Click to expand...
Even SCOTUS hates it across the board if you read their conclusion. Five of the justices clearly said they are not judging the merits of the law as passing the constitutional bar level, rather the suit didn’t make sense. People are just mad that they actually did their job within the limits allowed by the law. The plaintiffs sued the wrong damn people … which is part of the problem nobody knows who to sue right now.

Once an actual suit is made I think it will scream thru the courts and up to SCOTUS just like they did with NFA 1934
 
#361
#361
NorthDallas40 said:
Even SCOTUS hates it across the board if you read their conclusion. Five of the justices clearly said they are not judging the merits of the law as passing the constitutional bar level, rather the suit didn’t make sense. People are just mad that they actually did their job within the limits allowed by the law. The plaintiffs sued the wrong damn people … which is part of the problem nobody knows who to sue right now.

Once an actual suit is made I think it will scream thru the courts and up to SCOTUS just like they did with NFA 1934
Click to expand...

I agree with the majorities decision, I just hope this law gets struck down quickly.
 
#362
#362
NorthDallas40 said:
That’s a discussion that only involves the parents and their doctors and nobody else. However trying to parse situations like that and feather them into desire to overall restrict abortion isn’t a good look. That’s as bad as the other extreme of unrestricted abortion.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just of the opinion that situations like @AshG is talking about are very rare nowadays. They are going to defend abortion based on the safety of the mother when incidents of danger are not very common place. The overwhelming majority of the time, woman will have no life threatening issues or no issues that cannot be handled with modern medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#363
#363
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, I'm just of the opinion that situations like @AshG is talking about are very rare nowadays. They are going to defend abortion based on the safety of the mother when incidents of danger are not very common place. The overwhelming majority of the time, woman will have no life threatening issues or no issues that cannot be handled with modern medicine.
Click to expand...
But they won't concede to get rid of the abortions that are simply for birth control. Usually the pointing of rape, incest, mother harm is disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#366
#366
utvols88 said:
But they won't concede to get rid of the abortions that are simply for birth control. Usually the pointing of rape, incest, mother harm is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the reason because of the issue of the right to control one's own body. It outweighs the fetus right to a potential life up to viability.
 
#367
#367
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, I'm just of the opinion that situations like @AshG is talking about are very rare nowadays. They are going to defend abortion based on the safety of the mother when incidents of danger are not very common place. The overwhelming majority of the time, woman will have no life threatening issues or no issues that cannot be handled with modern medicine.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you. But the cases which ash referenced are clear cut cases where abortion is warranted for medical reasons and probably happening in many cases where they don’t want to get one. I believe the current Texas law even defines these cases as unlawful. Stupid extremism the other way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#373
#373
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't care about the reason because of the issue of the right to control one's own body. It outweighs the fetus right to a potential life up to viability.
Click to expand...
Disagree it's merely potential. It all comes down to the definition of when one becomes human. Viability is a moving target and inconsistent when applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top