The beginning of the end to legal abortions

[Speedy]

Texas’ Near-Ban on Abortions Takes Effect After Supreme Court Fails to Act

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/su...rtion.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court did not take action early Wednesday on a request to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, allowing the most restrictive abortion law in the nation to go into effect.

The law, known as Senate Bill 8, amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in Texas, one that will further fuel legal and political battles over the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The law makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.

An emergency application from abortion providers seeking to block the law remains pending, and the court is expected to rule on it shortly.

In the application, abortion providers wrote that the law “would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas, barring care for at least 85 percent of Texas abortion patients (those who are six weeks pregnant or greater) and likely forcing many abortion clinics ultimately to close.”

Supreme Court precedents forbid states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks.

But the Texas law was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. But the Texas law bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

[Lemon Drop]

Yet another bad thing happening that the people do not want..when will this tyranny of the minority end?

[Lemon Drop]

Time for Texas women of childbearing ability to stop having sex with men unless they are open to a pregnancy or the guy is sterilized.

[S. Pupp]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Time for Texas women of childbearing ability to stop having sex with men unless they are open to a pregnancy or the guy is sterilized.

My recommendation to even it out:

The sterilized men will have to carry papers to prove their sterilization, along with pictures of the surgery, to prove the scars match.

If a man is found to have faked his papers, he can be reported and jailed, and the person reporting will receive $10,000.

[pdq]

Speedy, you stopped too soon…

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

This legal structure in itself is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope the inevitable injunction comes soon.

[Lemon Drop]

pdq wrote:
Speedy, you stopped too soon…

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

This legal structure in itself is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope the inevitable injunction comes soon.

ACLU will keep fighting against this absurd law even though the Court just ignored their request for an emergency injunction.

I hope a district court will strike it down, or maybe it will get rolled up in a bigger decision coming from the court about these crazy state laws. Or both.

I think there was a thread on this earlier, but how does a completely unrelated party have grounds to sue?

[pdq]

Lemon Drop wrote:

I think there was a thread on this earlier, but how does a completely unrelated party have grounds to sue?

The only similar thing that comes to mind is that we used to have a lawyer around here that would troll around and look for businesses that were (sometimes minimally) out of compliance with the Americans with disabilities act in terms of entries to their businesses, etc. He would then contact these businesses and threaten to raise an ADA lawsuit against them, unless they essentially paid him off. (He wasn’t disabled).

As I recall, this guy eventually ended up in jail for other questionable stuff.

Edit: Here it is. He didn’t end up in jail, but was suspended, fined (minimally), and reprimanded. And apparently he hired a raft of (disabled?) folks that he would file the suit for, and then split the money with him.

Anyway, the Texas law would bring this kind of thing, on steroids.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

pdq wrote:
And apparently he hired a raft of (disabled?) folks that he would file the suit for, and then split the money with him.

Well, that certainly sounds unethical.

[vision63]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Yet another bad thing happening that the people do not want..when will this tyranny of the minority end?

It's begun. It's late, we've lost years, have suffered setbacks (such as this) but it's begun. We just have to keep it going. All of this was on previous ballots that people chose to not take seriously enough.

We very simply have to keep on winning no matter what the obstacles are.