Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Captainant 27973]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

yuuuuup. been saying this for years - most notably to my mother - who has (I think) finally come around. You want to reduce abortions (sorry conservatives, you will never eliminate abortion) then provide education and resources to give that mother and her child the best chance possible.

Sounds like...

[Longhorn_Fan68 33932]

nobody sporting a Wu-Tang sticker should ever react like that to fucking Bernie Sanders. He wore mittens to Biden's inauguration, ffs.

[Captainant 27973]

5 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Btw, I didn't really think of that as a racist turn of phrase but I appreciate you sharing your worldview with me. Definitely something to work out of my vernacular

[Longhorn_Fan68 33932]

36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Btw, I didn't really think of that as a racist turn of phrase but I appreciate you sharing your worldview with me. Definitely something to work out of my vernacular

eh, like the The Gadsden flag and other things racists co-opted, it didn't start out as a racist saying. I feel like it's one that's splitting hairs, but I'm happy to not use it - not that I really do anyway.

[F250 28945]

On 9/3/2021 at 11:27 PM, workswithseed said:

I like Sack's idea of giving women IUDs if they want 

Sounds very Planned Parenthoody.

 

[F250 28945]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

You kinda have to believe that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary to be Christian.

Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without inheriting original sin so that she remained sinless and kept Jesus from inheriting original sin. That's a Catholic belief not shared by the rest of Christianity.

 

 

 

[CooterBrown 18091]

All I know is that Joseph was
for sure plowing that 12 year old pussy. He didn’t put a ring on that finger to go all JerseyMan on her.

[Aqua Buddha 14654]

6 hours ago, Woland said:

I label some conservatives as pro-abortion since they pursue policies that run counter to actually reducing abortion.

Tell them that abortions went up under Bush and Trump and watch their heads explode.

[Mole 4336]

7 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Is that what the disciple’s believed? Did Christ Himself bring that up in His teachings? Or, only when drinking wine around the campfire?

I have heard similar comments with other Booleans. Example: if you don’t believe Christ rose from the dead, you can’t be Christian. To which I ask the same questions I raised earlier. Did His disciples know in advance He would rise from the dead? Were they fools to follow Him only because of His teachings?

Don’t you strip believing the words of Christ (only those words and their implications) and then add stuff He did not say, to define Christianity. Believe me, He wouldn’t like that.

Setting aside the question of the necessity of a virgin birth, Paul claimed in 1 Cor 15 that denial of the resurrection of Christ is incompatible with the core point of the faith (And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins). Maybe you could still consider yourself a Christian, but it would definitely be something very different than the faith practiced by most Christians throughout history. Of course, this is pretty tangential to the central goal of finding proof texts to rationalize using state power to subjugate women. 

[Willfully Horn 8091]

28 minutes ago, Mole said:

Setting aside the question of the necessity of a virgin birth, Paul claimed in 1 Cor 15 that denial of the resurrection of Christ is incompatible with the core point of the faith (And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins). Maybe you could still consider yourself a Christian, but it would definitely be something very different than the faith practiced by most Christians throughout history. Of course, this is pretty tangential to the central goal of finding proof texts to rationalize using state power to subjugate women. 

Not denying it is a tenet of Catholicism. Or kissapaganism, for that matter. Merely laying claim to a belief in Christ that is not defined by others.

(Edited to say those other than the red letter guy, Himself).

Thomas is no anode of mine. And Paul wasn’t a disciple.

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Explained

[brakeman 28513]

It's on, you wheelie little bitch!

[Biff Tannen 45769]

5 minutes ago, brakeman said:

It's on, you wheelie little bitch!

[JimmyJames 12271]

17 hours ago, F250 said:

Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without inheriting original sin so that she remained sinless and kept Jesus from inheriting original sin. That's a Catholic belief not shared by the rest of Christianity.

 

 

 

Don’t know whether or not this is accurate but the “immaculate conception” has always been the absolute dumbest story Christianity ever told. It’s up there with morman magic underwear and a bunch of Scientology bullshit. 

[Captainant 27973]

16 minutes ago, brakeman said:

It's on, you wheelie little bitch!

Full complaint if you care to read it:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060093-us-v-texas-complaint

In addition to the trampling of women's constitutional rights, the suit is also bringing arguments against SB8 due to its influence against interstate commerce since it applies to national insurance providers and abortion providers that are receiving federal funds. Seems like a pretty solid and multi-faceted case that isn't just relying on Roe, which is good considering the supreme's current composition.

The three main claims for relief are the supremacy clause and 14A, preemption by existing federal law (supremacy clause again), and violation of intergovernmental immunity due to its tampering with existing federal contracts.

The suit is seeking a judgement declaring SB8 null and void, a preliminary injunction against any party seeking to bring a suit pursuant to SB8, and attorneys costs (lol)

[Smax 3800]

So help me understand surley legal eagles, reading this federal suit and the comments from gov hotwheels and his pit crew. They keep referencing the heart beat,

"Renae Eze, spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott. “Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion."

Now there was another article posted a page or two back stating that at 6 weeks the fetus hasn't developed it cardiovascular system yet so the pulsating we see on the sonogram isn't really a heart beat.

Is that meaningless in all of this ?

[Guest Lobo]

Good question.  Another serious question---is the whole "heartbeat" thing...doesn't it differ from fetus to fetus?  And is that benchmark based on something from the bible?  Obviously, heartbeat was all we knew of physiology long ago but now we know there are other bodily functions taking place that "give life" other than just the heartbeat.  

[Biff Tannen 45769]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

Is that meaningless in all of this ?

This is all meaningless.  It's not about abortion.  It's about votes and dumb people that vote.

[Smax 3800]

15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is all meaningless.  It's not about abortion.  It's about votes and dumb people that vote.

you obviously didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night

[sidis 9838]

thank you DOJ for seeing this for the completely insane element of this that it is...

 

II. S.B. 8 Deputizes Private Parties to Act as State Actors in a Public Enforcement Scheme and Uses the Judicial System to Deprive Women of Their Constitutional Rights

27. In a transparent effort to evade constitutional scrutiny, Texas has outsourced the authority to enforce S.B. 8 to ordinary citizens. S.B. 8 prohibits state and local governmental entities and their employees from enforcing the statute. In their place, S.B. 8 empowers any person to file suit against anyone who performs a prohibited abortion, aids or abets such an abortion, or “intends” to do either of those things. § 171.208(a). A successful claimant can obtain an injunction that prevents a defendant from engaging in these activities, and is entitled to at least $10,000 (S.B. 8 does not set a maximum) in “statutory damages” for each abortion the defendant has performed, aided, or abetted, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.

28. The statute assigns enforcement authority to private individuals through civil litigation in state court as a means of evading lawsuits challenging S.B. 8’s constitutionality. Cf. Whole Woman’s Health, 2021 WL 3910722, at *1 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”). Indeed, S.B. 8 was specifically designed to evade ordinary constitutional review. Specifically, the law bars its own enforcement by public agencies but creates a private cause of action that requires state courts to grant injunctive relief and statutory damages for constitutionally protected activity. §§ 171.207, 171.208(b).

29. This intent has been unmistakably revealed in public statements by the law’s architects and champions. For example, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life stated that one of the “main motivations” for S.B. 8’s design is to stymie judicial review. See Emma Green, What Texas Abortion Foes Want Next, The Atlantic (Sept. 2, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2021/09/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court/619953/ (asserting that S.B. 8 was 10 crafted out of “frustrat[ion]” with courts that “block[] pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens”) (last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

30. Moreover, one of the attorneys principally involved in advising the State on S.B. 8 recently offered a similar observation about laws bearing S.B. 8’s private enforcement characteristic: “It is practically impossible to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to statutes that establish private rights of action, because the litigants who will enforce the statute are hard to identify until they actually bring suit.” Jonathan F. Mitchell, The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy, 104 Va. L. Rev. 933, 1001 n.270 (2018), https://www.virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mitchell_Online.pdf (last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

31. And Senator Bryan Hughes, one of the principal architects of S.B. 8 in the Texas Legislature, removed all doubt about this purpose when he informed reporters that S.B. 8’s structure was intended to avoid the fate of other “heartbeat” bills that have been struck down as unconstitutional. See Jacob Gershman, Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney’s Unusual Enforcement Idea, The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 4, 2021, 9:38 A.M.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-texas- abortion-law-an-attorneys-unusual-enforcement-idea-11630762683 (last visited Sept. 9, 2021). Sen. Hughes was quoted succinctly stating the point: “We were going to find a way to pass a heartbeat bill that was going to be upheld.” Id. Sen. Hughes elsewhere deemed the statute a “very elegant use of the judicial system.” Jenna Greene, Column: Crafty lawyering on Texas abortion bill withstood SCOTUS challenge, Reuters (Sept. 5, 2021, 1:52 P.M.), https://reuters.com/legal/government/crafty-lawyering- texas-abortion-bill-withstood-scotus-challenge-greene-2021-09-05/(last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

32. While prior state efforts to unduly burden access to abortion services relied primarily upon executive enforcement of state law, “[i]t is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies,” including “its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all actions of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.” Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1879). Awarding the monetary relief that S.B. 8 authorizes—to plaintiffs who need not demonstrate any injury or other connection to the underlying abortion procedure—constitutes state activity designed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of women in Texas. “That the action of state courts and of judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of th[e] [Supreme] Court.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14 (1948). Thus, while Texas has gone to unprecedented lengths to cloak its attack on constitutionally protected rights behind a nominally private cause of action, it nonetheless has compelled its judicial branch to serve an enforcer’s role. “State action, as that phrase is understood for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, refers to exertions of state power in all forms.” Id. at 20.

33. Under the state-action doctrine, private actors also may be found to function as agents or arms of the state itself and thus are bound by the Constitution. See, e.g., Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (“state action may be found if . . . seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated as that of the State itself’”); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 663 (1944) (private actor was acting as “agency of the state”).

34. The Supreme Court has deemed individuals to be state actors where they exercise “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928-29 (2019). S.B. 8 vests individuals with law-enforcement authority—a power traditionally reserved exclusively to a sovereign—in a manner that appears to be “unprecedented,” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 2021 WL 3910722, at *2 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Among other things, S.B. 8 does so by providing individuals with unsupervised authority to police violations of the law, and by enabling them to obtain civil penalties against anyone in the state without any showing of personal injury.

35. These individuals are also state actors to the extent they are significantly involved in conduct that would be unconstitutional if engaged in by the State itself or Texas has sanctioned their conduct. See, e.g., Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 380-81 (1967) (finding state action where law “authorize[d] . . . racial discrimination in the housing market”); Smith, 321 U.S. at 663-64 (state’s establishment of primary system made the private party that set up an all-white primary “an agency of the state”); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 469-70 (1953) (similar). S.B. 8 implicates this doctrine by expressly authorizing—indeed, empowering—individuals to engage in conduct that violates the constitutional rights of women throughout Texas, in a manner in which the State itself would not be able to engage.

[TwiceHorn 31686]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

So help me understand surley legal eagles, reading this federal suit and the comments from gov hotwheels and his pit crew. They keep referencing the heart beat,

"Renae Eze, spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott. “Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion."

Now there was another article posted a page or two back stating that at 6 weeks the fetus hasn't developed it cardiovascular system yet so the pulsating we see on the sonogram isn't really a heart beat.

Is that meaningless in all of this ?

Basically yes.  

Current law is that abortion may not be unduly burdened by the state prior to viability of the fetus, that is the ability to live outside the womb, naturally or artificially assisted.

Regardless of the appearance or detection or existence of a fetal heartbeat, the fetus is not viable at that point.  Several "fetal heartbeat" statutes have been struck down on this ground.

"Fetal heartbeat" is a frothy emotional appeal to some point in gestation where they can argue "life" that's after conception, but long before viability.

Also, I think what the cited doctor said is basically accurate and medically non-controversial.  The EMBRYONIC (it's not a foetus medically until 10 weeks) cells that will eventually form a heart begin to exhibit electrical activity that would also correspond to the beating of a heart, which will form weeks later.  As far as "heartbeat" that circulates blood through a cardiovascular system, it ain't there.

Edited September 9, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45769]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

you obviously didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night

No, but I am correct.

[Smax 3800]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Basically yes.  

Current law is that abortion may not be unduly burdened by the state prior to viability of the fetus, that is the ability to live outside the womb, naturally or artificially assisted.

Regardless of the appearance or detection or existence of a fetal heartbeat, the fetus is not viable at that point.  Several "fetal heartbeat" statutes have been struck down on this ground.

"Fetal heartbeat" is a frothy emotional appeal to some point in gestation where they can argue "life" that's after conception, but long before viability.

 

 

That's been my point whenever I've had conversations about abortion and have been pushed by anti abortion friends on when "my" cut off timeframe would be. Viability, IMO at 6 weeks a fetus is a parasitic blob of goo, the looks I get from saying that are fantastic

[JimmyJames 12271]

51 minutes ago, sidis said:

thank you DOJ for seeing this for the completely insane element of this that it is...

 

II. S.B. 8 Deputizes Private Parties to Act as State Actors in a Public Enforcement Scheme and Uses the Judicial System to Deprive Women of Their Constitutional Rights

27. In a transparent effort to evade constitutional scrutiny, Texas has outsourced the authority to enforce S.B. 8 to ordinary citizens. S.B. 8 prohibits state and local governmental entities and their employees from enforcing the statute. In their place, S.B. 8 empowers any person to file suit against anyone who performs a prohibited abortion, aids or abets such an abortion, or “intends” to do either of those things. § 171.208(a). A successful claimant can obtain an injunction that prevents a defendant from engaging in these activities, and is entitled to at least $10,000 (S.B. 8 does not set a maximum) in “statutory damages” for each abortion the defendant has performed, aided, or abetted, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.

28. The statute assigns enforcement authority to private individuals through civil litigation in state court as a means of evading lawsuits challenging S.B. 8’s constitutionality. Cf. Whole Woman’s Health, 2021 WL 3910722, at *1 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”). Indeed, S.B. 8 was specifically designed to evade ordinary constitutional review. Specifically, the law bars its own enforcement by public agencies but creates a private cause of action that requires state courts to grant injunctive relief and statutory damages for constitutionally protected activity. §§ 171.207, 171.208(b).

29. This intent has been unmistakably revealed in public statements by the law’s architects and champions. For example, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life stated that one of the “main motivations” for S.B. 8’s design is to stymie judicial review. See Emma Green, What Texas Abortion Foes Want Next, The Atlantic (Sept. 2, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2021/09/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court/619953/ (asserting that S.B. 8 was 10 crafted out of “frustrat[ion]” with courts that “block[] pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens”) (last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

30. Moreover, one of the attorneys principally involved in advising the State on S.B. 8 recently offered a similar observation about laws bearing S.B. 8’s private enforcement characteristic: “It is practically impossible to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to statutes that establish private rights of action, because the litigants who will enforce the statute are hard to identify until they actually bring suit.” Jonathan F. Mitchell, The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy, 104 Va. L. Rev. 933, 1001 n.270 (2018), https://www.virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mitchell_Online.pdf (last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

31. And Senator Bryan Hughes, one of the principal architects of S.B. 8 in the Texas Legislature, removed all doubt about this purpose when he informed reporters that S.B. 8’s structure was intended to avoid the fate of other “heartbeat” bills that have been struck down as unconstitutional. See Jacob Gershman, Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney’s Unusual Enforcement Idea, The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 4, 2021, 9:38 A.M.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-texas- abortion-law-an-attorneys-unusual-enforcement-idea-11630762683 (last visited Sept. 9, 2021). Sen. Hughes was quoted succinctly stating the point: “We were going to find a way to pass a heartbeat bill that was going to be upheld.” Id. Sen. Hughes elsewhere deemed the statute a “very elegant use of the judicial system.” Jenna Greene, Column: Crafty lawyering on Texas abortion bill withstood SCOTUS challenge, Reuters (Sept. 5, 2021, 1:52 P.M.), https://reuters.com/legal/government/crafty-lawyering- texas-abortion-bill-withstood-scotus-challenge-greene-2021-09-05/(last visited Sept. 9, 2021).

32. While prior state efforts to unduly burden access to abortion services relied primarily upon executive enforcement of state law, “[i]t is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies,” including “its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all actions of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.” Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1879). Awarding the monetary relief that S.B. 8 authorizes—to plaintiffs who need not demonstrate any injury or other connection to the underlying abortion procedure—constitutes state activity designed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of women in Texas. “That the action of state courts and of judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of th[e] [Supreme] Court.” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 14 (1948). Thus, while Texas has gone to unprecedented lengths to cloak its attack on constitutionally protected rights behind a nominally private cause of action, it nonetheless has compelled its judicial branch to serve an enforcer’s role. “State action, as that phrase is understood for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, refers to exertions of state power in all forms.” Id. at 20.

33. Under the state-action doctrine, private actors also may be found to function as agents or arms of the state itself and thus are bound by the Constitution. See, e.g., Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (“state action may be found if . . . seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated as that of the State itself’”); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 663 (1944) (private actor was acting as “agency of the state”).

34. The Supreme Court has deemed individuals to be state actors where they exercise “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928-29 (2019). S.B. 8 vests individuals with law-enforcement authority—a power traditionally reserved exclusively to a sovereign—in a manner that appears to be “unprecedented,” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 2021 WL 3910722, at *2 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Among other things, S.B. 8 does so by providing individuals with unsupervised authority to police violations of the law, and by enabling them to obtain civil penalties against anyone in the state without any showing of personal injury.

35. These individuals are also state actors to the extent they are significantly involved in conduct that would be unconstitutional if engaged in by the State itself or Texas has sanctioned their conduct. See, e.g., Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 380-81 (1967) (finding state action where law “authorize[d] . . . racial discrimination in the housing market”); Smith, 321 U.S. at 663-64 (state’s establishment of primary system made the private party that set up an all-white primary “an agency of the state”); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 469-70 (1953) (similar). S.B. 8 implicates this doctrine by expressly authorizing—indeed, empowering—individuals to engage in conduct that violates the constitutional rights of women throughout Texas, in a manner in which the State itself would not be able to engage.

What that guy said. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Texas republicans done fucked up in a huge way. They passed a law they thought was clever and some of the radicals thought would get around judicial review, or the less radicals thought would be enjoined by the courts. Apparently the more radicals are currently winning. Too clever by half.

You want some money? Hire me to sue people and docs for abortions! The nazi party is gonna be forced to pass this shit in other states, all thanks to the cowards on the Supreme Court pissing in their pants.

This is gonna be a huge disaster for the republicans. This is just the beginning. 

[fuggled 576]

So help me understand surley legal eagles, reading this federal suit and the comments from gov hotwheels and his pit crew. They keep referencing the heart beat,
"Renae Eze, spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott. “Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion."
Now there was another article posted a page or two back stating that at 6 weeks the fetus hasn't developed it cardiovascular system yet so the pulsating we see on the sonogram isn't really a heart beat.
Is that meaningless in all of this ?

They provide their own definition of fetal heartbeat in the law. Basically says something about cardiac noise. It's just a label they've put on something that clearly isn't a heartbeat.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31686]

Paragraphs 28-31 kind of crack me up.  The troglodytes couch it in terms of "these mean, stupid old courts," while ignoring that the courts all hold the laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

They're actually proud of violating the US Constitution.

Fucktards.

I cringe and rage when assholes like Cruz and other republitards bleat about loving the Constitution.

[elfenix 34387]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Paragraphs 28-31 kind of crack me up.  The troglodytes couch it in terms of "these mean, stupid old courts," while ignoring that the courts all hold the laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

They're actually proud of violating the US Constitution.

Fucktards.

I cringe and rage when assholes like Cruz and other republitards bleat about loving the Constitution.

we love the constitution but only the one that protects old wealthy men's prestige in society. 

[TwiceHorn 31686]

15 minutes ago, fuggled said:

They provide their own definition of fetal heartbeat in the law. Basically says something about cardiac noise. It's just a label they've put on something that clearly isn't a heartbeat.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
 

Yep, and it's a dumb definition.  

(1)  "Fetal heartbeat" means cardiac activity or the
	steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart
	within the gestational sac.

 

I think "cardiac activity" is maybe semi-accurate, but "rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart" is pure sci-fi.

[elfenix 34387]

15 minutes ago, fuggled said:

They provide their own definition of fetal heartbeat in the law. Basically says something about cardiac noise. It's just a label they've put on something that clearly isn't a heartbeat.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
 

courts very rarely delve into the factual findings by the legislature.  in addition to the thing about the (non)fetal (non)heartbeat being detectable, the law also makes a claim that doctors commonly use that to determine likelihood of a pregnancy going to term.  that's more a recitation than a trigger so i doubt a court would look particularly closely to see if medicine actually does work that way.  because the law doesn't actually say "six weeks" but instead relies on the machine making sounds to please the listeners, maybe a court might be more inclined to look at the actual mechanism to see if what the lege is claiming actually happens.  though i suspect the trigger for that would be a firmware rollout for the machines to stop making pleasing sounds until there's actual circulatory action going on. 

[wild_turkey 3222]

I’m having a hard time processing SB 8. Can someone explain all of this to me like I’m 5?

Just to recap my very limited understanding, which is probably flawed:

pre-1973 - Abortion illegal in Texas

1973 Roe v. Wade - It is unconstitutional to have a total ban on abortion. Women have the right to choose in the first trimester but restrictions can be made for the second trimester.

1973-present - Conservative states implement measures to make abortion more difficult, i.e. needing an ultrasound first, but never anything that directly violates Roe v. Wade.

2021 SB 8 - Private citizens deputized to sue any person who has an abortion or anyone who aids and abets an abortion after 6 weeks. This can happen an unlimited number of times to the tune of $10k a pop. Time will tell if these lawsuits will be successful, but the threat of extreme legal repercussions will likely be a deterrent to anyone performing an abortion moving forward.


What I don’t understand is this…

1. How can the State of Texas allow (encourage?) anyone to sue someone else for an action that is already protected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision? It’s like saying “Alright, we agree that Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, so we’re not going to pass a law to authorize segregation per se, but we’re going to pass a law to allow random people to sue anyone involved with black people attending a white school.” I don’t understand the basis for being able to sue someone for something that isn’t illegal in the first place.

2. If this can be done to effectively eliminate Roe v. Wade, then can’t it be used for any state to invalidate almost any SCOTUS decision the state disagrees with? What’s the power of the SCOTUS then?

3. What stops states from using this tactic to pass other absurd laws to target groups of people or prohibit activities they don’t agree with? Conservative states could do the same thing to prohibit gay marriage or eliminate healthcare for transgender people. Liberal states could allow citizens to sue each other for having a handgun. Chaos ensues?

4. Is there any legal precedent to deputizing private citizens to sue each other for the sake of enforcing a “law”, however sensible or irrational that law may be?

5. Is there any legal precedent to allowing one person to sue another person for an action that did not directly harm the plaintiff?


Sorry for the long post and for asking questions that have likely been hashed out somewhere in this thread. I’ve been trying to read and understand this but my pea brain is failing me on this topic and I need help.

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I’m having a hard time processing SB 8. Can someone explain all of this to me like I’m 5?

Just to recap my very limited understanding, which is probably flawed:

pre-1973 - Abortion illegal in Texas

1973 Roe v. Wade - It is unconstitutional to have a total ban on abortion. Women have the right to choose in the first trimester but restrictions can be made for the second trimester.

1973-present - Conservative states implement measures to make abortion more difficult, i.e. needing an ultrasound first, but never anything that directly violates Roe v. Wade.

2021 SB 8 - Private citizens deputized to sue any person who has an abortion or anyone who aids and abets an abortion after 6 weeks. This can happen an unlimited number of times to the tune of $10k a pop. Time will tell if these lawsuits will be successful, but the threat of extreme legal repercussions will likely be a deterrent to anyone performing an abortion moving forward.


What I don’t understand is this…

1. How can the State of Texas allow (encourage?) anyone to sue someone else for an action that is already protected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision? It’s like saying “Alright, we agree that Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, so we’re not going to pass a law to authorize segregation per se, but we’re going to pass a law to allow random people to sue anyone involved with black people attending a white school.” I don’t understand the basis for being able to sue someone for something that isn’t illegal in the first place.

2. If this can be done to effectively eliminate Roe v. Wade, then can’t it be used for any state to invalidate almost any SCOTUS decision the state disagrees with? What’s the power of the SCOTUS then?

3. What stops states from using this tactic to pass other absurd laws to target groups of people or prohibit activities they don’t agree with? Conservative states could do the same thing to prohibit gay marriage or eliminate healthcare for transgender people. Liberal states could allow citizens to sue each other for having a handgun. Chaos ensues?

4. Is there any legal precedent to deputizing private citizens to sue each other for the sake of enforcing a “law”, however sensible or irrational that law may be?

5. Is there any legal precedent to allowing one person to sue another person for an action that did not directly harm the plaintiff?


Sorry for the long post and for asking questions that have likely been hashed out somewhere in this thread. I’ve been trying to read and understand this but my pea brain is failing me on this topic and I need help.

Short (somewhat) answer to a long question. 
 

Both Congress and state legislators in every state in the past have passed laws that allow private citizens to sue to vindicate their OWN rights that the laws provide.
 

A perfect example is discrimination at work. If you’re an old and get get fired for being an old you can sue your employer for age discrimination under both federal and state law. 

What this law does is allow random joe shithead to sue anyone who assisted you in doing something you had a constitutional right to do. 
 

It’s a clearly unconstitutional law, and I’m still baffled that the Supreme Court didn’t enjoin it. 

[fuggled 576]

32 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I’m having a hard time processing SB 8. Can someone explain all of this to me like I’m 5?

Just to recap my very limited understanding, which is probably flawed:

pre-1973 - Abortion illegal in Texas

1973 Roe v. Wade - It is unconstitutional to have a total ban on abortion. Women have the right to choose in the first trimester but restrictions can be made for the second trimester.

1973-present - Conservative states implement measures to make abortion more difficult, i.e. needing an ultrasound first, but never anything that directly violates Roe v. Wade.

2021 SB 8 - Private citizens deputized to sue any person who has an abortion or anyone who aids and abets an abortion after 6 weeks. This can happen an unlimited number of times to the tune of $10k a pop. Time will tell if these lawsuits will be successful, but the threat of extreme legal repercussions will likely be a deterrent to anyone performing an abortion moving forward.


What I don’t understand is this…

1. How can the State of Texas allow (encourage?) anyone to sue someone else for an action that is already protected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision? It’s like saying “Alright, we agree that Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, so we’re not going to pass a law to authorize segregation per se, but we’re going to pass a law to allow random people to sue anyone involved with black people attending a white school.” I don’t understand the basis for being able to sue someone for something that isn’t illegal in the first place.

2. If this can be done to effectively eliminate Roe v. Wade, then can’t it be used for any state to invalidate almost any SCOTUS decision the state disagrees with? What’s the power of the SCOTUS then?

3. What stops states from using this tactic to pass other absurd laws to target groups of people or prohibit activities they don’t agree with? Conservative states could do the same thing to prohibit gay marriage or eliminate healthcare for transgender people. Liberal states could allow citizens to sue each other for having a handgun. Chaos ensues?

4. Is there any legal precedent to deputizing private citizens to sue each other for the sake of enforcing a “law”, however sensible or irrational that law may be?

5. Is there any legal precedent to allowing one person to sue another person for an action that did not directly harm the plaintiff?


Sorry for the long post and for asking questions that have likely been hashed out somewhere in this thread. I’ve been trying to read and understand this but my pea brain is failing me on this topic and I need help.

You're raising a lot of the same points that the DOJ included in their lawsuit.  It's a good read to back up your logic.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=21060104-us-v-state-of-

[Willfully Horn 8091]

19 hours ago, Lobo said:

Good question.  Another serious question---is the whole "heartbeat" thing...doesn't it differ from fetus to fetus?  And is that benchmark based on something from the bible?  Obviously, heartbeat was all we knew of physiology long ago but now we know there are other bodily functions taking place that "give life" other than just the heartbeat.  

Quickening. Feeling the baby move, or kick. That is the biological milestone that history chose as the time when abortion became illegal.

And, by history, I mean the 1800s

Edited September 10, 2021 by Willfully Horn
More

[TwiceHorn 31686]

18 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

I’m having a hard time processing SB 8. Can someone explain all of this to me like I’m 5?

Just to recap my very limited understanding, which is probably flawed:

pre-1973 - Abortion illegal in Texas

1973 Roe v. Wade - It is unconstitutional to have a total ban on abortion. Women have the right to choose in the first trimester but restrictions can be made for the second trimester.

1973-present - Conservative states implement measures to make abortion more difficult, i.e. needing an ultrasound first, but never anything that directly violates Roe v. Wade.

2021 SB 8 - Private citizens deputized to sue any person who has an abortion or anyone who aids and abets an abortion after 6 weeks. This can happen an unlimited number of times to the tune of $10k a pop. Time will tell if these lawsuits will be successful, but the threat of extreme legal repercussions will likely be a deterrent to anyone performing an abortion moving forward.


What I don’t understand is this…

1. How can the State of Texas allow (encourage?) anyone to sue someone else for an action that is already protected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision? It’s like saying “Alright, we agree that Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, so we’re not going to pass a law to authorize segregation per se, but we’re going to pass a law to allow random people to sue anyone involved with black people attending a white school.” I don’t understand the basis for being able to sue someone for something that isn’t illegal in the first place.

2. If this can be done to effectively eliminate Roe v. Wade, then can’t it be used for any state to invalidate almost any SCOTUS decision the state disagrees with? What’s the power of the SCOTUS then?

3. What stops states from using this tactic to pass other absurd laws to target groups of people or prohibit activities they don’t agree with? Conservative states could do the same thing to prohibit gay marriage or eliminate healthcare for transgender people. Liberal states could allow citizens to sue each other for having a handgun. Chaos ensues?

4. Is there any legal precedent to deputizing private citizens to sue each other for the sake of enforcing a “law”, however sensible or irrational that law may be?

5. Is there any legal precedent to allowing one person to sue another person for an action that did not directly harm the plaintiff?


Sorry for the long post and for asking questions that have likely been hashed out somewhere in this thread. I’ve been trying to read and understand this but my pea brain is failing me on this topic and I need help.

Elaborating a bit on Jimmy's excellent response.

As he noted, many statutes that can be enforced in the first instance by the government are also enforceable by private citizens in civil suits.  It is often referred to as the "private attorney general" scenario.  Here, though, the statute is not enforceable by the government, but only by private parties.

The basic premise of Roe v. Wade is that there is a "fundamental right" to privacy or sexual or reproductive autonomy.  The "state" cannot infringe a fundamental right without a compelling state interest and legislation that is narrowly tailored to serve that interest without otherwise unduly infringing the right in question.  Roe basically held that the state has little or no interest, much less a compelling one, in regulating abortion until the fetus is viable. So, basically, pre-viability restrictions are unconstitutional.

Over the years, that "test" of constitutionality, which is of general application when a "fundamental right" is infringed, has morphed into "the state cannot unduly burden a person seeking an abortion before viability."  That test allows more interference with pre-viability abortions than the Roe test.

Then we move to how these statutes are enforced.  Most of them make giving or having an abortion subject to criminal or civil penalties.  That means that the state either moves to prosecute or sue an abortion provider or patient, at which point the provider or patient can assert as s defense that the statute is unconstitutional as failing the tests above: because the STATE is acting to BURDEN abortion before viability.  Also, providers and patients can short circuit the thing by filing their own suit saying they intend to provide or have (or have provided or had) an abortion and should not be subjected to prosecution or civil penalty.

So, that's how these normally get "judicial review" for constitutionality.  That the state is a party to the prosecution or suit means that the state is enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Here, the first dodge is that there is no penalty from the State of Texas.  So arguably, and only slightly arguably, there is no state action.  Like the First Amendment, private parties are free to censor and otherwise infringe your right to free speech.  So, too, here, only private parties are acting against your right to have a pre-viability abortion.

But, the state having provided a statute and courts to enforce it is probably sufficient state action to invoke the Constitution.

The second dodge is that it is almost impossible to sue the state over this or otherwise obtain judicial review.  The abortion providers and patients don't get sued or prosecuted by the state, but only by private parties.  That makes it difficult to posture the case procedurally to obtain a ruling on the constitutionality of the statute.  You might win your suit on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional, but because the state is not a party, it can't be enjoined from enforcing the statute, which it doesn't do anyway.

tl;dr these fuckers are gleefully attempting to evade application of the Constitution of the United States.  They also think they're clever. They're not.

 

 

 

 

[Js1 85760]

NYT got tricked, right? This is not a real name for some writing about abortion - Karen Swallow Prior

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

NYT got tricked, right? This is not a real name for some writing about abortion - Karen Swallow Prior

 

English prof….Liberty University now at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[TwiceHorn 31686]

I finally read the Supreme Court's order on this statute.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf

The usual course these statutes take is that they are challenged in a federal district court by suing the State through a state official charged with enforcement of the statute, where the facial unconstitutionality of them results in an immediate injunction against enforcement by the state.  That wends its way through the Court of Appeals and then appears on the "shadow docket" of the Supreme Court.

Because of the unusual nature of this statute, the plaintiffs had to sue state judges and district clerks and other people that would be involved in a potential lawsuit under the statute, putting it in a weird procedural posture that gave the Supremes a pretty clear path to not immediately enjoining the thing.  So, in a sense, dipshit mission accomplished.

The dissents' arguments that the majority should have ignored all the procedural bullshit because it is so clearly contrived by Texas to produce the result it obtained, is persuasive, nevertheless.  The majority really let themselves be duped, in a sense, by the design of the statute.  Still, it is only a delay, not a final decision.

Although the outcome of the Supreme Court decision is disturbing, particularly when compared to treatment more conventional early abortion ban laws have received, I don't think it really foretells what the Supreme Court is going to do with this.  Moreover, this is a completely shitty vehicle to oveturn Roe v. Wade, so that ain't happening here.

The BIden DOJ lawsuit should provide a good vehicle for having the law pretty quickly enjoined, and that appealed up and sustained by even the Supremes. The dipshits are not going to avoid a legal reckoning on this.  And that right soon.

Edited September 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33932]

 

[staboner 5015]

fuck you Abbot

[WhatTheBuck 28837]

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

NYT got tricked, right? This is not a real name for some writing about abortion - Karen Swallow Prior

 

I’d rather she swallow after. 

[Guest Lobo]

On 9/6/2021 at 2:03 PM, Bama Chick said:

If y’all got little manlets like Briscoe organizing the Abortion Posses, that could level the playing field a small bit.

Most women could whip his tiny ass.
 

Anybody noticing this week that Briscoe's baby-murder bounty hunts are taking him to a disproportionately large number of truck-stop restrooms, bespoke leather chap shops, and musical theaters?  

[brakeman 28513]

savagely violent.

[Biff Tannen 45769]

2 hours ago, brakeman said:

savagely violent.

Good god.  

[brakeman 28513]

 

[tigol 2421]

1 minute ago, brakeman said:

 

It's always been about shame.

There is a reason why fathers are relieved to have sons.  

[washparkhorn 9939]

9 minutes ago, tigol said:

There is a reason why fathers are relieved to have sons. 

That made me sad to even consider.

Personally, I was so relieved to have a daughter after twin boys. She completed me. Still does. 

 

[Anastasis 23512]

Projecting the patriarchy is real. 

[tigol 2421]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Projecting the patriarchy is real. 

Bullshit, troll.

If your teenage son impregnated a teenage female, who bears responsibility? 

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Projecting the patriarchy is real. 

Interesting law review on projecting the patriarchy - Patriarchy as the exclusive domain of the other: The veil controversy, false projection and cultural racism, Susanna Mancini, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 March 2012, Pages 411–428. 

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/10/2/411/666047

 

[brakeman 28513]

46 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

That made me sad to even consider.

Personally, I was so relieved to have a daughter after twin boys. She completed me. Still does. 

 

I'm proud to be a girl dad.

There are plenty of little fuck heads. I only need to show her how to recognize this dumb fuckery. I am considering  showing her all about shaggy/surley.