Posted on 10/22/2021 11:07:30 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to immediately block a Texas anti-abortion law that bars abortions once cardiac activity is detected, but it agreed to review whether it is constitutional.
The high court wrote in its order (pdf) that it would consider the question of whether “the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced,” referring to Senate Bill 8, the name of the law that has been in effect since Sept. 1 in Texas.
It means that a decision issued by a federal court earlier in October that stayed a ruling by a judge in Austin had blocked it. Facilities and doctors in the state of Texas are prohibited from performing nearly all procedures or face the risk of a civil lawsuit with penalties of at least $10,000. Any individual who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion after the cardiac activity is detected can be sued under the state law, and it is not enforced by any Texas state agency.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said she would have blocked the law while the court reviews it.
“The Court is right to calendar this application for argument and to grant certiorari before judgment [in both cases] in recognition of the public importance of the issues these cases raise,” she wrote Friday, alleging that “women will suffer personal harm” over the law. “The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care, who are entitled to relief now.”
This week, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas’ law, arguing it is “plainly unconstitutional.” If Texas is found correct by the court, Justice Department lawyers asserted that other states would pass similar laws barring most abortions.
But on Thursday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded by telling the Supreme Court that the laws’ provisions are designed to protect the lives of unborn children.
“Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion,” Paxton also argued, saying that the law does not “violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Referring to the law’s enforcement mechanism, Paxton stated the Department of Justice lacks standing because it’s suing Texas, and “Texas executive officials do not enforce SB 8.”
“There is therefore no state executive or judicial official who can be enjoined” to stop enforcing the law even if a temporary injunction is handed down, he wrote.
In a prior decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to allow the Texas law to be enforced in early September in a separate challenge filed by pro-abortion groups and providers. Chief Justice John Roberts, who took issue with the enforcement mechanism, joined Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sotomayor to say that the law should be temporarily blocked.
Oral arguments were set by the Supreme Court for Nov. 1. It comes about a month before the Supreme Court is slated to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law that prohibits most abortion after around the 15th week of pregnancy.
Roberts... showing his true colors.
Right when it came out experts were saying it was a well written law
That’s key I would think. So many good rulings getting shot down. Not this one.
you know at the same time all these women are hysterical that men won’t marry or even date them anymore, and of course are b1tching at the men for this
given what’s going on, not sure if this law will even be a “problem” for any of them
I love this especially: “Referring to the law’s enforcement mechanism, Paxton stated the Department of Justice lacks standing because it’s suing Texas, and ‘Texas executive officials do not enforce SB 8.’” Booomarang!
Impotent Brandon just can’t get a win.
Every law needs some enforcement provision, whether it's surveillance by law enforcement, or witness reports by civilians. Otherwise, such laws are unenforceable. Why is the abortion law any different?
The best part is that SB8 is straight out of the gungrabbers’ playbook - “We won’t make it illegal to have a gun, just extremely expensive!”
This is *not* an abortion ban. Abortion is still legal in Texas. No doctor will go to jail for performing a 7th week abortion. They are still perfectly free to do so. But it’s going to be extremely expensive for them.
They really really love abortion! Their passionate love of abortion is a mental disorder.
“Everyone is screeching…”
Indeed
When people stop looking for pro abortion lawmakers and voters (non voters too I suppose) to not object viciously and expect flack like they’re flying over a SAM site in an Â-10 when they do enact fetal protective legislation then there can be some progrsss on this
That’s the hilarious part. It requires no enforcement by state officials at all. It simply allows citizens to sue someone performing an abortion after the sixth week of gestation for money.
It’s right out of the gungrabber playbook - where the officials say, ‘But we’re not banning guns, we’re just letting the victims sue! See, there’s no enforcement mechanism!”
While the constitution protects the sanctity of life, does it give the federal government the right to make laws legalizing abortion? No it does not. But the USSC will just rely on it previously illegal rulings.
Funny part about this is if the left just kept their collective mouths shut for the last 20 years, this would never have come up. Election after election all we hear from the radicals is abortion abortion abortion. Roe vs Wade took of the issue, yet they still rant.
What I like most is no one is saying they are pro-choice anymore for fear it will be used against them with the COVID shot.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So, no “harm” to the dead baby hunh Sonja?!
I wish I could say what I feel on this point.
Does anyone know if criminal prosecution is still a possibility after or during the time the civil lawsuit part plays out?
How shameful that US institutions have ceded the moral high ground so that Putin—Putin!— gets to lecture America on the true meaning of tolerance, discrimination and and civil rights!
Or as Al Gore would put it “no governing legal authority”.
There is no criminal prosecution provision in SB8.
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.