Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Department of Justice on Thursday sued Texas over the state’s restrictive abortion law. The department argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional. “It is settled constitutional law that ‘a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,’” the lawsuit said. “But Texas has done just that.” The lawsuit comes after the Supreme Court, stacked 6-3 with conservative justices, last week refused to block the controversial abortion law from taking effect.
It is a really crappy bill on many levels but I don’t understand how the DOJ can sue as a party to it instead of just supporting another party’s lawsuit. I honestly don’t see how they have standing.
For the record, I want to see this bill fail for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion itself. I find the idea of disinterested party enforcement through civil lawsuits suits chilling. If this works it hard to tell where it will be utilized. Don’t think for a minute the other side won’t use it to go after your guns.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I suppose there could be some conflict with the 14th Amendment, especially since Roe v Wade essentially says a woman can do what she wants with her body.
I'm not a fan of abortion, especially as a form of casual birth control. It'd be better to choose some other form, including, but not limited to, keeping one's pants on.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that Texas had effectively "deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures."
This is what they would do if the law was made in their favor.
They would encourage people ratting out their neighbors, like they have always done. Not in this case...
In a 2008 study, a group of political scientists found that you could. Now local Democrats are testing the theory.
Postcards mailed to select voters in Erie County included the names of neighbors and their voting histories in an attempt to use social pressure to get people to the polls today.
...
The Democratic mailers appear to be based on a 2008 study done by three political science professors that found mailers that attempted to use social pressure by revealing voting histories could have as much of an impact as door-to-door get-out-the-vote efforts.
So let's just say that Texas is using "social pressure" to aid in compliance of the law.
Brown is concerned that people may simply ignore her orders and gather around the feast table anyway. So what’s an autocratic executive to do? The answer is as simple as pumpkin pie. She’d like people to keep an eye out for large gatherings in their neighborhood and call the police if they see any suspiciously large, turkey-related activity going on.
I don't care for it either way, but I understand why they did it this way. I originally took the law to mean people having the abortions could sue the provider... not necessarily other third parties.
It is a really crappy bill on many levels but I don’t understand how the DOJ can sue as a party to it instead of just supporting another party’s lawsuit. I honestly don’t see how they have standing.
For the record, I want to see this bill fail for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion itself. I find the idea of disinterested party enforcement through civil lawsuits suits chilling. If this works it hard to tell where it will be utilized. Don’t think for a minute the other side won’t use it to go after your guns.
I want to see Texas slapped down on both issues.......abortion and snitching.
I think the Supremes will pass on it and wait for a case where the standing is clear.
The clearest seems a woman denied an abortion, especially one who is unable to find an alternative in time. That will take time to find and persuade to become the test case.
I want to see Texas slapped down on both issues.......abortion and snitching.
I think the Supremes will pass on it and wait for a case where the standing is clear.
The clearest seems a woman denied an abortion, especially one who is unable to find an alternative in time. That will take time to find and persuade to become the test case.
+1. And with no exceptions in rape cases, I doubt this ridiculous law will remain in place long. The irony is Mexico just decriminalized abortion. I imagine many women will travel there for the procedure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
