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. ...
The Illinois angle is that while Illinois would never pass such a law, neighboring states might, thereby overloading our abortion infrastucture.
5-4 ruling. Good thing we have a “conservative” majority.
Lori Light in the loafers guarantees murder with freedom from prosecution.
For a start, suing some poor Uber driver because they drove someone to get an abortion is going to increase economic uncertainty in very unhelpful ways. If the GOP embraces this approach, its their funeral. Mostly likely this will be overturned once people start getting sued.
Economic uncertainty? Killing babies is a big % of the economy now under Sleepy Joe??
Therein lies the rub. Our constitutional republic wasn't set up so that a court could create law from thin air. Quite the opposite.
If you read through the Declaration of Independence, most of the text are complaints the founders had against the British government. And a lot of that text had to do with courts violating laws from Parliament and creating laws from thin air to suit the crown's goals in the colonies.
When we treat stare decisis (otherwise known as "case precedent" or "case law") as equal to Constitutional law we lose our soul as a nation. Exhibit A are the 60 million babies aborted because Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey said it's cool.
A sue-happy society is a society with a lot of economic uncertainty because it increases the unforeseen setbacks you can experience.
What amazes me the most is four people on the SC said it is okay to murder a child
Big opportunity for Illinois!
Additional tax revenue
New distribution centers for fetal tissue
Employment opportunities for sample preparation
Stimulation for the hospitality industry
However, in this case it is the PlannedParenthood crowd who must now constantly be looking over their shoulders for who is gonna snitch.
This whole thing might also be a long play by Tx politicos. Liberals now have another reason to protest by leaving Tx. WinWin.
How many women are two weeks late & haven’t done a pregnancy test?
Many years ago I read an article from Focus on the Family making the case against exceptions for rape and incestuous relationships. They explained it is not the babys fault first of all, why should it be killed? More importantly, the incestuous exception just encourages the perpetrator to keep doing it. They are the ones that drive them there, pay for the abortion and keep molesting. If the young molested girl can't abort, everybody finds out who the pervert is and it stops.
An interesting anecdote.
I know a left winger who left North Carolina for the green green grass of Texas.
She now wants to desert the endlessly flat and anti left wing city and return to NC
She can’t because she can’t find a place to live. The cost of housing is through the roof
I was very excited to hear that it may stop leftist from moving to Texas as well as encourage some to move out.
The issue in the case was procedural. Did they plaintiff show enough to obtain a preliminary injunction? The majority could have care about the merits, they focused on whether the legal standard for such relief had been met and the answer was “no.”
The case continues and the merits remain undecided.
Yet the media goes on and on as if abortion had been outlawed.
Did anyone read the actual ruling? The ruling was that the lawsuit was not properly structured. Had nothing to do with the law itself but that the plaintiffs were suing the law itself trying to get it suspended. The court rejected the request for an emergency suspension of the law.
They neither confirmed not denied the law itself. This was rejected on procedural technicalities.
The way the law is written it's anyone who assists. That includes the Uber driver.
The Wall Street Journal. asked an interesting question in their editorial. What if New York allows its people to sue others for hate speech? Or if California allows its people to sue others for gun usage in self defense? Where does this end?
They neither confirmed not denied the law itself. This was rejected on procedural technicalities.Does not affect The Narrative of the Week. If for any reason even one baby is protected for one instant, it's left wing hysteria time.
The thing Republicans were good for was stability. You need to be able to know what to expect to be able to plan for operating a business, or just to be able to plan. Lefties undermine this with “you’re a racist” left, right, and center. Now the GOP in Texas is doing the same thing. One fine day you could wake up and find “you’re an abortionist.”
A sue-happy society is an unfriendly business climate society. Look what happened when the libertarians descended on Grafton New Hampshire and started suing everyone over everything. The businesses all left.
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.