Posted on 09/03/2021 5:39:24 AM PDT by Salman
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block a Texas law that bans most abortions as early as about six weeks, before many women even know they’re pregnant.
The law — considered among the most restrictive in the nation — is unconventional in its approach, because it permits any private citizen to sue abortion providers or anyone aiding women in terminating a pregnancy, including someone who provides women rides to an abortion clinic or helps fund the procedure. The measure prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Abortion rights activists fear the case could set precedence and other states might adopt similar laws, particularly some in the Midwest and southern swathes of the nation. Other state laws that have attempted such restrictive gestational limits on the procedure were previously blocked or struck down by the courts, citing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that established a woman’s right to an abortion.
... Activists from both sides of the abortion debate believe Illinois will see an uptick in travel here for the procedure. ...
“Did anyone read the actual ruling?’
You, I and few others. Why break FReeper tradition?/s
Illinois has no standing to worry about what Texas does. The Supreme Court just ruled that way a year ago during the election.
Wrong, cab drivers, Uber drivers, these guys can be sued under this law.
“Roe v Wade was an extremely dishonest decision that now passes for “settled law” because it’s 500 years old. And it passed as “negative law”. Essentially, Roe was court-ordered de-regulation of state-licensed medical doctors, putting abortionists above the law, with license to kill innocent life,arguably. Normally, medical doctors are NOT above the law. Licensing is a form of regulation. Doctors may be forced to carry insurance,, may be sued for medical malpractice, lose their license, or even be charged & convicted of crimes. A better law would be to focus on taking away medical license…..(interesting how governors banned HCQ in the Covid19 pandemic, thereby interfering with the patient-doctor “right to privacy” even though CDC reports from 10 yrs ago claimed that HCQ was effective on coronaviruses)……but the fact that medical doctors may be sued might be. Big reason why doctors lobbies want abortion rights meant to terminate troubling pregnancies, where medical doctor may be sued for performing a C section or not performing one, or if the baby or mother is harmed i pregnancy results in a difficult birth.
..and if states want to highlight the abortion rights scam and ignore the fact that a female needs a state licensed medical doctor to get an abortion……therefore Roe really was POSITIVE LAW that granted females the right to be provided by the states with state licensed medical doctors (Democrats will build federal clinics to circumvent state law, by the way.))—-if ther states want to highlight the absurdity of Roe claims, they could pass a law granted EQUAL right to privacy/reproductive rights to males. After all, if no law says life begins at conception…..and the law does not hold females responsible for getting pregnant —because they may choose adoption or to abort their pregnancy—-…conception is when a female’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm in her body…….which then feeds & incubates HER fertilized egg. The female’s body does not treat a fertilized egg like a parasite, it changes to protect and nurture it……although not all pregnancies result in birth. Why is it legally ok to blame the male and hold males responsible of conception , but females are not held responsible for getting pregnant??? Equal protection of the law.
The same sex marriage decision was a rogue court decision that didn’t even pretend to be small government”negative law”. Licensing is a form of regulation & marriage is a form of discrimination….ie forming an exclusive couple. The reason for licensing marriage is to institutionalize heterosexual monogamy while discouraging promiscuity and homosexuality. Government saw a public purpose in this……polygamous societies are violent and unstable….and males and females BOTH need to be relatively certain who the fathers of babies are….ie the husbands of the wives. Part of the argument about same sex marriage was calling it a private matter…which government licensing is NOT. Another part was absurdly claiming that because marriage already was so degraded by no fault divorce and serial marriage that it could not be degraded any more by a liberal coup de grace that makes marriage everything and nothing. Equal protection does not apply to tax policy or regulatory policy, eg treating BIG business differently than SMALL business, arbitrarily defined.
Anyway…..the Obamacare decision undermined the negative law/small government rationale behind Roe v. Wade……moreover——-the 1990s Ruth Badger Ginsburg authored decision about “doctor assisted suicide” made the difference between positive and negative law well defined (meanwhile the Supreme Court doesn’t even have a real definition of speech versus press! But that’s another blog)
Ginsburg said Roe versus Wade was about what the State cannot do to a woman in inhibiting her freedom (ignored the fact that state licensed medical doctors abort pregnancies)) She said that with doctor assisted suicide (Ginsburg was an idiot as a judge, by the way) was about demanding the State to do something FOR you. ..which was not in the Constitution. But the fact is, Ginsburg’s doctor assisted suicide decision, ie there’s no “right to die”……interfere’s with privacy between a patient and doctor and says that !)) state licensed medical doctors do NOT have license to kill their patients and 2) patients do not have any right to be killed by their state licensed medical doctor…so of course this precedent my be used as a basis to overturn Roe v Wade , which was a political and not legal decision that rightly infuriated any rational and right thinking person.
But politically…..is it wise for states to really take on abortion if females have been taught for years that this is a fundamental right that GOP babies want to take away? Once you go after Roe, then you green light Democrats trying to ban guns by ignoring and overturning all court decisions supporting gun rights. Just saying. Is this the battle to pick right now? I say no”——-a friend’s blog
The Supremes should Never have ruled in Roe vs. Wade.
It should have been a states right issue.
N.Y. and Calif. will always go for abortion.
Alabama, never but it was shoved up their asses. You want an abortion, go to a liberal state
Who joined the three on the far-left? Roberts?
“Same sex marriage decision ignored both the fact that marriage licensing is a form of regulation and that forming exclusive couples is a form of discrimination.
Basically, a simple majority of rogue judges passed an ILLEGAL Constitutional amendment, using “equal protection” for cover…..and using it wrongly, too
The court ordered states to license same sex marriage without any underlying state or federal law allowing them to do this…in fact, this was in direct violation of state and federal law.
This is no different than the court saying that if old people get Medicare and Social Security, than everybody is entitled to it. Roe struck down laws banning abortion….but the same sex marriage decision is an illegal Consttutional amendment because it did not strike down any law…..it trampled over every law & supplanted all law by court order which now is considered a Constitutional right…ie the court illegally amended the Constitution to create a right to same sex marriage and order states to license it. States and churches should have responded to the decision by refusing to marry anybody!”—-friend’s blog
I see it as Texas and Alabama joining forces by attacking Roe v Wade from two different angles in hopes that at least one law wins over. If Texas had made a law identical to Alabama's, then the pro-baby-butchers could kill both laws with one court case.
Yes.
“Abortion is NOT a birth control method any more than killing the repo man is an acceptable method of avoiding the car payment you agreed to.”
Great point, bears repeating.
You have a point about how abortion rights can be used to cover up crimes of incest, but your point does not apply to rape and forcing a female victim of rape to carry and give birth to a rapists’ baby. I guess you can call it THEIR baby, but there’s no them there. This was not a consensual relationship. is there such thing as a criminal gene? And while it is politically correct to call rape a crime of violence and not of sex, this is shallow garbage. There has to be sexual component in rape…..an unconscious animal instinct or else the male would not seek sexual union by it…he would just beat, stab, shoot or murder her. Making the female carry the baby to term, then give the baby up for adoption still makes the rapist the winner and rewards him by passing on his genes for other people to raise with their money. He is not forced to pay for the baby if she adopts it out….and does the state really want to make a rapist pay his victim if she chooses to keep the baby? What does that o to her mental or emotional state? Yes, it is true that having exemptions to abortion is inconsistent and somewhat irrational……but that is why some people fight for abortion rights with no exceptions. Just saying. 20 years ago, Arizona did a test to see how much the state was against abortion. They put abortion rights on a ballot proposition/initiative and referendum. The people of Arizona voted about 70% to keep abortion legal for everybody in support of Roe v Wade. Now, Democrats have TWO United States senators in Arizona……Sinema and Kelly……..and they have the majority of HOUSE seats, too…..and Democrats are winning all the mayor elections and picking up seats in the State legislature, too. So maybe abortion is NOT a great political issue for GOP? By all means educate females & preach that abortion is a sin….try to change hearts and minds……..but abortion just got Biden elected. …even if t just made liberals willing to cheat and steal it. Trump did not talk about abortion at all when he ran for GOP nomination….and it was not a big part of his campaign. But it became a big part of his presidency when he picked his judges…..including Kavanaugh….whom was hated by Democrats because he was involved in the Clinton impeachment. Democrats got so angry over Kavanaugh, the lied about him then impeached Trump TWICE to get revenge. Rush Limbaugh used to say the best of all possible worlds was if abortion was legal, but nobody ever got one. I miss Rush.Going after abortion rights when Democrats are going after gun rights just encourages them,….and loses independent and working woman votes. Fact is, in places like Arizona and Ohio and Iowa…..sometimes there are MORE independent voters than there are Republicans or Democrats registered. In PA, half of the state is registered Democrats, but fewer than 40% are registered Republicans and that is why “stir up the base” politics does NOT work for the GOP, especially since the press always is against us.
And with his vote, Roberts PROVES that he is “political”...something he claimed he NEVER wanted the Court to be.
Hypocrite.
It will be interesting to see if ‘abortion tourism’ will be prosecuted under the Man Act.
It should be.
Roe versus Wade actually said that abortion IS a form of birth control. The precedent than used to support their decision was a birth control right decision.
Same story in the Cincinnati Enquirer
What amazes me is that there are posters here on FR who are actively saying it's the GOP's funeral for embracing life and doing all we can to protect the dignity and sanctity of it, most importantly those who are the most defenseless among us, the unborn.
Sad, isn't it?
One fine day you could wake up and find “you’re an abortionist.”
don’t kill babies and you won’t be an abortionist
How likely is that? As you point out, he's not exactly a deep-pockets prospect.
Well, Uber has said they will pick up the tab for their driver’s defense now, but what protects people in general from being sued continually in civil court is that the person doing the suing would need to hire a lawyer willing to take the case in question, and then prove their case in court. That is an expensive proposition so it most often doesn’t get done unless the target of the suit has deep pockets. This law makes it very easy, and very profitable at $10,000 bucks a pop, to go after people not entitled to a court appointed lawyer (because it’s a civil case). If this methodological travesty flies, then there is nothing stopping the Left from doing the same thing with their ever increasing list of grievances.
They say that hard cases make for bad law, and generally that applies to bad precedents set in emotional cases. Here you have a case of someone intentionally doing that writ large.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.