The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

Dutchy wrote:

The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

Dutchy wrote:

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

Governments use all manner of means to control peoples lives, once we allow those tools to be used, they are available to all sides, economic sanctions, taxes to stimulate certain behaviours, and on and on it goes.

Dutchy wrote:

The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

Simple: it's not a good idea and it's absolutely crazy. Libertarian outrage in 3...2...

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

This is crossing a line. It is a work around of federal legislation and by doing this you put control in the hands of private citizens.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

Governments use all manner of means to control peoples lives, once we allow those tools to be used, they are available to all sides, economic sanctions, taxes to stimulate certain behaviours, and on and on it goes.

Yes, it will be available to all sides, that's why it is a very dangerous president.

Need to advise the mods to change the title from Taxes to Texas....

Dutchy wrote:

The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

par13del wrote:

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.

phatfarmlines wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.

So the purpose of the Texas law is.......
How is this any different from states having strict gun laws while their neighbour do not?
In the mind of these politicians, if they prevent one low income person who cannot easily travel to another state from having an abortion the angels in heaven will rejoice.
So far all attempts to have Roe v Wade killed have failed, its one of the reasons why Republicans and christian zealots have been more invested in local versus federal politics, they definetely believe in the mantra that all politics is local. The democrats on the other hand, go Federal, which one is working best right now????

Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit

So not only can you sue, but you'll get awarded "damages", even though you were not by any means damaged.

Banning abortions after only 6 weeks is completely and utterly ridiculous in the first place, and this somehow manages to make it all even worse.

The Texas law is based on harassments, intimidation, and abuse. All things valued by the current Texas political leaders.

The law is an attempt at a run around of Federal law striking down unconstitutional acts by the government in favor of giving private citizens financial incentives to undermine the constitutional rights of other citizens. All in all I think every person that voted for this law should go to prison.

vikkyvik wrote:

Individuals found to have violated the law would have to pay $10,000 to the person who successfully brings such a suit

So not only can you sue, but you'll get awarded "damages", even though you were not by any means damaged.

Banning abortions after only 6 weeks is completely and utterly ridiculous in the first place, and this somehow manages to make it all even worse.

Yup, the real purpose of this Texan law is to kill off abortion clinics and professionals altogether. Bury them with lawsuits (each Texan can sue, without limits for a single case), so all their time is consumed and their funding is taken away by these pay-outs. It is bully by design.

Out of all the pregnancies, abortion accounts for very, very few of them. Republicans and the "right to birth" crowd don't care that abortion for birth control accounts for so few abortions. This is another excuse for right wing evangelicals to control women. They are all outraged over how Taliban treats women but gladly do the same to women here.

seb146 wrote:

Out of all the pregnancies, abortion accounts for very, very few of them. Republicans and the "right to birth" crowd don't care that abortion for birth control accounts for so few abortions. This is another excuse for right wing evangelicals to control women. They are all outraged over how Taliban treats women but gladly do the same to women here.

...are you sure they are outraged by how the Taliban treats women, one would think that they would also be outraged by the way the ME countries in general treat women?
Perhaps we need to verify who is mostly outraged...

par13del wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Out of all the pregnancies, abortion accounts for very, very few of them. Republicans and the "right to birth" crowd don't care that abortion for birth control accounts for so few abortions. This is another excuse for right wing evangelicals to control women. They are all outraged over how Taliban treats women but gladly do the same to women here.

...are you sure they are outraged by how the Taliban treats women, one would think that they would also be outraged by the way the ME countries in general treat women?
Perhaps we need to verify who is mostly outraged...

I was think that as well, which is the concept that conservatives sort of agree with the whole controlling women dimension of the Taliban.

At last, Texas is doing it right. About time to challenge the fallacy that an abortion is a 'constitutional right'.

If Democrats believe abortion should be federally protected, they can if they wish enact federal legislation protecting it. Not hiding under the false pretense that this is in the constitution.

Won't get my hopes up expecting the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with hoping.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

At last, Texas is doing it right. About time to challenge the fallacy that an abortion is a 'constitutional right'.

If Democrats believe abortion should be federally protected, they can if they wish enact federal legislation protecting it. Not hiding under the false pretense that this is in the constitution.

Won't get my hopes up expecting the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with hoping.

Well Texas has apparently legalized State Sponsored Terrorism. So I am sure the Conservatives are excited. Funding Civil lawsuits is the same as banning abortions. The Supreme Courts failure to act is an abandonment of their duty.

casinterest wrote:

Well Texas has apparently legalized State Sponsored Terrorism. So I am sure the Conservatives are excited. Funding Civil lawsuits is the same as banning abortions. The Supreme Courts failure to act is an abandonment of their duty.

I take it that you favor an activist court.
The congress of the USA has the final say, as in prior SCOTUS comments on rulings, it is not their job to create laws.
I agree with the other poster, pass laws within the constitution versus sitting back expecting the judges to do your job for you, the people elected them to rule. The Republicans have been taking over local assemblies to push their mandate via legislation, if the democrats think those protections should be federal, have at it.

par13del wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Well Texas has apparently legalized State Sponsored Terrorism. So I am sure the Conservatives are excited. Funding Civil lawsuits is the same as banning abortions. The Supreme Courts failure to act is an abandonment of their duty.

I take it that you favor an activist court.
The congress of the USA has the final say, as in prior SCOTUS comments on rulings, it is not their job to create laws.
I agree with the other poster, pass laws within the constitution versus sitting back expecting the judges to do your job for you, the people elected them to rule. The Republicans have been taking over local assemblies to push their mandate via legislation, if the democrats think those protections should be federal, have at it.

The issue here ,is this isn't Congress's responsibility. They don't create state laws.

The Federal Law is consistent and has been since 1973. Women have the right to their privacy and abortions are legal.

The issue here is that Texas has gotten a very corrupt Supreme Court to turn away and ignore the law until a legal challenge is made. This means until a woman is sued trying to exercise her constitutional right to an abortion, then the Supreme Court will not act to declare the law invalid.

In the meantime the abortion providers are shutting down access for fear of being sued, therefore denying women the chance to get their constitutionally guaranteed abortion.

So now what has to happen is for a case to occur, whether a provider steps in and does it, or a person gets sued and challenges it. Then the Supreme court will act.

This new approach to legality by the Supreme Court , is the same of saying you can't get a person arrested for saying they want to kill you. You have to wait for an attempt.

The silence of the Supreme court is nothing short of Endorsing state sponsored terrorism.

casinterest wrote:

The Federal Law is consistent and has been since 1973.

Which law is that? please do cite it.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Federal Law is consistent and has been since 1973.

Which law is that? please do cite it.

US Constitution. As cited in Roe vs Wade.

Read both documents.

casinterest wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The Federal Law is consistent and has been since 1973.

Which law is that? please do cite it.

US Constitution. As cited in Roe vs Wade.

Read both documents.

That's not a law, and you haven't cited absolutely anything.

If that's the case then, have you heard about the 'law' "Dred Scott vSanford?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

How about that law?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Which law is that? please do cite it.

US Constitution. As cited in Roe vs Wade.

Read both documents.

That's not a law, and you haven't cited absolutely anything.

If that's the case then, have you heard about the 'law' "Dred Scott vSanford?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

How about that law?

Scott vs Sanford?

So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?

So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.

casinterest wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

US Constitution. As cited in Roe vs Wade.

Read both documents.

That's not a law, and you haven't cited absolutely anything.

If that's the case then, have you heard about the 'law' "Dred Scott vSanford?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

How about that law?

Scott vs Sanford?

So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?

So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.

Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.

That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That's not a law, and you haven't cited absolutely anything.

If that's the case then, have you heard about the 'law' "Dred Scott vSanford?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

How about that law?

Scott vs Sanford?

So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?

So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.

Your own

Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.

That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.

No. you don't get to rewrite the 14th amendment. People have an expectation of privacy and their own decisions. The onus to get laws passed into the constitution should fall on those that would deny these rights.

phatfarmlines wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The Supreme Court early Wednesday let a Texas state law take effect that allows private citizens to sue to uphold a ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

par13del wrote:

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.

That isn't necessarily true.... Lets say a woman, living in Texas, decides to go to Colorado and get an abortion and recovers from the procedure and returns to Texas. Once the woman returns to Texas, if anyone found out that she went to Colorado for the procedure, she can still get sued regardless. The abortion does not have to take place in Texas.

However, I can see how this can be abused profusely. Imagine having this on your medical record and being sued so many times just because it's on your medical record every single time it's accessed. It really voids out the HIPPA laws, too!

And people say the Taliban doesn't respect women... These fundamentalist evangelicals in the Texas GOP don't respect women either. All they want to do is control them. Pro-life, yeah right. What a backwards state.

casinterest wrote:

The issue here ,is this isn't Congress's responsibility. They don't create state laws.

Exactly my earlier point, the Republicans have been focused on the states while the democrats have been focused on Washington, so to protect women's rights at the state level they have to find a federal alternative, if they cannot, they need to return to battle in the states, starting with the governors and more state assemblies going democratic.
Whether I agree with their politics or not, I have to accept that the republicans are doing their thing legally by getting control of the mechanisms of local government, in my mind they have set up their field of battle, now who wants to contest? In another thread on voters rights, they are using the same local political power, the dems ran to Washington, not sure that is what they really meant by trying to get Washington into the fight.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That's not a law, and you haven't cited absolutely anything.

If that's the case then, have you heard about the 'law' "Dred Scott vSanford?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

How about that law?

Scott vs Sanford?

So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?

So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.

Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.

That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.

Let’s do a brief recap from Civics class: the judicial branch checks the powers of legislative lawmaking by analyzing Constitutional concerns of state and federal laws. Abortion laws were challenged, resulting in a decision where existing law was found to breach 14th and 9th amendment protections. The vote was 7-2. In this case the ‘democratic means’ you cite were found by SCOTUS to have gone too far. It’s in the decision, if you care to read it:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Roe was a carefully balanced decision as it did not invalidate all state abortion restrictions - only those which onerously violate a woman’s personal liberty and privacy.

Bonus civics question: if a practicing Christian or Catholic is against abortion, they don’t have to get one. Why would their belief apply to a neighbor who feels differently? This Texas law encourages people to take legal action under a similar premise. That doesn’t sound crazy to you?

Texas had to ban abortions because they have to replace all of the people who were too stupid to get vaccinated, who are dying of Covid down there.

AirframeAS wrote:

That isn't necessarily true.... Lets say a woman, living in Texas, decides to go to Colorado and get an abortion and recovers from the procedure and returns to Texas. Once the woman returns to Texas, if anyone found out that she went to Colorado for the procedure, she can still get sued regardless. The abortion does not have to take place in Texas.

This NPR article suggests otherwise - It's a bit of an overreach for in-state laws to be applied out-of-state, even if said person is a resident of Texas. I feel the federal government would be able to challenge that:

What The Texas Abortion Ban Does — And What It Means For Other States

The ban, though, will likely mean a lot of questions from patients about how they can get an abortion outside of Texas, Kumar said.

"I know that there are many people who don't have to ability to make it out of state ... The logistics and ability to do so is not an option for them," he said. "So I'm really concerned about what's going to happen to people."

Source: NPR

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Scott vs Sanford?

So you have never heard of Amendments 13+., What country are you in that ignores the last 15 amendments?

So you want Civil war again to enforce what the constitution says about people's privacy?
The US Constitution is law.

Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.

That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.

Let’s do a brief recap from Civics class: the judicial branch checks the powers of legislative lawmaking by analyzing Constitutional concerns of state and federal laws. Abortion laws were challenged, resulting in a decision where existing law was found to breach 14th and 9th amendment protections. The vote was 7-2. In this case the ‘democratic means’ you cite were found by SCOTUS to have gone too far. It’s in the decision, if you care to read it:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Roe was a carefully balanced decision as it did not invalidate all state abortion restrictions - only those which onerously violate a woman’s personal liberty and privacy.

Bonus civics question: if a practicing Christian or Catholic is against abortion, they don’t have to get one. Why would their belief apply to a neighbor who feels differently? This Texas law encourages people to take legal action under a similar premise. That doesn’t sound crazy to you?

Right, on Dred, the Chief Justice said: that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

That racist judge utilized the constitution to justify why Black people weren't citizens.

Why is it so hard for this be settled by an actual amendment to the constitution that mentions the actual practice of abortion, not some made up precedent that is based on judicial opinion just like Dred? There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment that states abortion is a privacy issue. That the left has promulgated that in order to avoid political scrutiny and debate by putting this to the voters is another subject, that's why is much simpler to have a few people in robes decide what's right or wrong according to their feelings on the constitution.

Very simple, have the constitution amended. That's the solution.

In the meantime, let the States decide, if California allows abortion till due date, so be it. If Alabama is not allowed at any time, so be it too. That's how it works and should work. Democracy is the method for which things are supposed to work, people holding their politicians accountable for their actions and laws.

Now similarly, why should I be forced to wear a mask? why should I be obligated to vaccinate? isn't that a privacy issue too? my body my choice?

When the National News is crying about something going on in Texas, then, I know we must be doing the right thing.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Then have the people, by vote, elect representatives and senators in congress that would add amendments protecting abortion as you desire. Dred Scott wasn't law, the same way Roe isn't. What ever the supreme court decides is not law, the people by democratic means elect those who enact the laws of this country.

That's a better way to settle it, by democratic means. Not by using false pretenses that supposedly the constitution say. Which it doesn't.

Let’s do a brief recap from Civics class: the judicial branch checks the powers of legislative lawmaking by analyzing Constitutional concerns of state and federal laws. Abortion laws were challenged, resulting in a decision where existing law was found to breach 14th and 9th amendment protections. The vote was 7-2. In this case the ‘democratic means’ you cite were found by SCOTUS to have gone too far. It’s in the decision, if you care to read it:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Roe was a carefully balanced decision as it did not invalidate all state abortion restrictions - only those which onerously violate a woman’s personal liberty and privacy.

Bonus civics question: if a practicing Christian or Catholic is against abortion, they don’t have to get one. Why would their belief apply to a neighbor who feels differently? This Texas law encourages people to take legal action under a similar premise. That doesn’t sound crazy to you?

Right, on Dred, the Chief Justice said: that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

That racist judge utilized the constitution to justify why Black people weren't citizens.

Why is it so hard for this be settled by an actual amendment to the constitution that mentions the actual practice of abortion, not some made up precedent that is based on judicial opinion just like Dred? There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment that states abortion is a privacy issue. That the left has promulgated that in order to avoid political scrutiny and debate by putting this to the voters is another subject, that's why is much simpler to have a few people in robes decide what's right or wrong according to their feelings on the constitution.

Very simple, have the constitution amended. That's the solution.

In the meantime, let the States decide, if California allows abortion till due date, so be it. If Alabama is not allowed at any time, so be it too. That's how it works and should work. Democracy is the method for which things are supposed to work, people holding their politicians accountable for their actions and laws.

Now similarly, why should I be forced to wear a mask? why should I be obligated to vaccinate? isn't that a privacy issue too? my body my choice?

An amendment is not needed because the 9th and 14th are already on the books. Dred Scott was invalidated by passage of the 13th. This is not hard to understand - high school stuff. It sounds like you’re more interested in an amendment to dissolve SCOTUS since their ‘opinions’ apparently don’t count for anything.

Infectious disease management is not a private matter like pregnancy. Public health mandates are addressed by both the 10th amendment and longstanding court precedent:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew ... -pandemic/

Please answer the bonus question from the previous post.

par13del wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The issue here ,is this isn't Congress's responsibility. They don't create state laws.

Exactly my earlier point, the Republicans have been focused on the states while the democrats have been focused on Washington, so to protect women's rights at the state level they have to find a federal alternative, if they cannot, they need to return to battle in the states, starting with the governors and more state assemblies going democratic.
Whether I agree with their politics or not, I have to accept that the republicans are doing their thing legally by getting control of the mechanisms of local government, in my mind they have set up their field of battle, now who wants to contest? In another thread on voters rights, they are using the same local political power, the dems ran to Washington, not sure that is what they really meant by trying to get Washington into the fight.

The rights in the US Constitution cannot be abridged by the states. So winning at the federal level is more important for people that value human rights. At the state level you usually have items reserved for intrastate items.

This law in Texas is a different animal. It hurts the rights of those seeking to have a legal abortion.

Imagine if a blue state like, Illinois enacted a law that gave 10,000 dollars to any anyone that reports a person aiding or abetting the private sale of a gun. The Gun lobby would all scream 2nd amendment, cold dead hands , and the like.

The constitution is there to protect certain rights. These can't be violated at the state level.

I am not a constitutional expert (and not a US citizen) but this sets an horrible precedent, and I'm not even talking about abortion : putting the law in citizens' hands, with a reward directly paid by the "offender" to the "good citizen" opens a can of worms that would lead to all kinds of nastiness, and is basically the end of civilization.

Aesma wrote:

I am not a constitutional expert (and not a US citizen) but this sets an horrible precedent, and I'm not even talking about abortion : putting the law in citizens' hands, with a reward directly paid by the "offender" to the "good citizen" opens a can of worms that would lead to all kinds of nastiness, and is basically the end of civilization.

The legal challenges are already ongoing. Further challenges will be swift and fervent.

https://amp.caller.com/amp/5669501001

There’s already talk in HR circles this will be a problem for employers moving to Texas because women will not want to work there.

par13del wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Well Texas has apparently legalized State Sponsored Terrorism. So I am sure the Conservatives are excited. Funding Civil lawsuits is the same as banning abortions. The Supreme Courts failure to act is an abandonment of their duty.

I take it that you favor an activist court.
The congress of the USA has the final say, as in prior SCOTUS comments on rulings, it is not their job to create laws.
I agree with the other poster, pass laws within the constitution versus sitting back expecting the judges to do your job for you, the people elected them to rule. The Republicans have been taking over local assemblies to push their mandate via legislation, if the democrats think those protections should be federal, have at it.

Republicans yell and scream about small government and keeping government out of our lives but when they are in power, they do the exact opposite. They are telling women the government has jurisdiction over their bodies.

As a man, I have no right to decide what is best for a woman. Hell, I have no right to decide what is right for another adult American. I may not like it but, as long as no one is being mentally or physically hurt, it is none of my concern. Abortion takes a horrible toll on a woman's body, from what I have read. A choice not taken lightly. A choice that I nor a state legislature or SCOTUS or anyone but the woman and her partner should be a part of. But, Republicans being Republicans, they demand women submit completely and wholly and without question.

Anyone with three brain cells to rub together can understand the implications of this law would be disastrous. If it stands, it'll be interesting to watch when a blue state makes the manufacture, purchase, and possession of ammunition a crime, which is not enforced by the government (2a won't apply therefore), but enforced by private citizens suing those who break the law. If you live in the US and this asinine law is allowed to stand, get ready to kiss all your rights goodbye.

emperortk wrote:

Anyone with three brain cells to rub together can understand the implications of this law would be disastrous. If it stands, it'll be interesting to watch when a blue state makes the manufacture, purchase, and possession of ammunition a crime, which is not enforced by the government (2a won't apply therefore), but enforced by private citizens suing those who break the law. If you live in the US and this asinine law is allowed to stand, get ready to kiss all your rights goodbye.

On the gun case, the democrats have been trying to do that at the federal level for years and have failed, I do not think that any one party will have a large enough majority to have sweeping federal gun laws, in my opinion it will have to start at the state level. Once more states implement sensible gun laws the federal option becomes much easier. Unfortunately, most states are controlled by republicans so......

par13del wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Anyone with three brain cells to rub together can understand the implications of this law would be disastrous. If it stands, it'll be interesting to watch when a blue state makes the manufacture, purchase, and possession of ammunition a crime, which is not enforced by the government (2a won't apply therefore), but enforced by private citizens suing those who break the law. If you live in the US and this asinine law is allowed to stand, get ready to kiss all your rights goodbye.

On the gun case, the democrats have been trying to do that at the federal level for years and have failed, I do not think that any one party will have a large enough majority to have sweeping federal gun laws, in my opinion it will have to start at the state level. Once more states implement sensible gun laws the federal option becomes much easier. Unfortunately, most states are controlled by republicans so......

Ah, but now there is a remedy for this! Congress simply needs to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue other private citizens for voting Republican. The plaintiff doesn't have to have standing or show damages. The government isn't involved, so the Constitution isn't violated. In fact, let them sue anybody who gave that Republican voter a ride to the polls too.

par13del wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Anyone with three brain cells to rub together can understand the implications of this law would be disastrous. If it stands, it'll be interesting to watch when a blue state makes the manufacture, purchase, and possession of ammunition a crime, which is not enforced by the government (2a won't apply therefore), but enforced by private citizens suing those who break the law. If you live in the US and this asinine law is allowed to stand, get ready to kiss all your rights goodbye.

On the gun case, the democrats have been trying to do that at the federal level for years and have failed, I do not think that any one party will have a large enough majority to have sweeping federal gun laws, in my opinion it will have to start at the state level. Once more states implement sensible gun laws the federal option becomes much easier. Unfortunately, most states are controlled by republicans so......

Negative - nobody has tried to make wholesale manufacture or purchase of ammunition a crime at the federal level, enforced by civilians. Just straight up false. There have been proposals and bans on specific categories of ammunition as well as magazines, but what you’re describing does not exist.

AirframeAS wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link to politico article

Two things seem very odd to me:
1. 6 weeks limit
2. private citizens can sue

1. 6 weeks limit is absurd, it effectively means, no abortions because many women don't even know they are pregnant and a decision to have an abortion isn't taken lightly. So time for the mother to (not) be is essential to make a decision like that.

2. Private citizens can sue other citizens? Really? What kind of society do you want? Another private citizen has nothing to do with what another citizen does, or doesn't do. What kind of a society do you get? Kind of society that spies on each other, mistrusting each other. Not unlike the. former DDR.

It is so simple: if you do not want an abortion, don't have one, your choice. But don't interfere in another person's life like that. In my view, this extreme Christian believes, should have no place in politics. The will of these Christians can't be put on society at large. Anyhow, those are my beliefs. I am curious if someone could explain this in more detail, why this is a good idea.

par13del wrote:

Since Roe v Wade is essentially still in effect, this is the best that can be done.....

We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.

That isn't necessarily true.... Lets say a woman, living in Texas, decides to go to Colorado and get an abortion and recovers from the procedure and returns to Texas. Once the woman returns to Texas, if anyone found out that she went to Colorado for the procedure, she can still get sued regardless. The abortion does not have to take place in Texas.

Colorado could make a law making it a felony to tell anyone about medical procedures in Colorado. Sue the Texas woman, get 10.000$, spend some years in Colorado prison...

Seems fair...

best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

When the National News is crying about something going on in Texas, then, I know we must be doing the right thing.

International news even. Strange criteria though. You must be sarcastic about this one, But you think it is a good idea for private citizens to sue each other. As others have said: this opens a can of worms. But then again, perhaps you were just trolling and I took the bate, shame on me.

tommy1808 wrote:

Colorado could make a law making it a felony to tell anyone about medical procedures in Colorado. Sue the Texas woman, get 10.000$, spend some years in Colorado prison...

Seems fair...

best regards
Thomas

I am sure your medical records are private in Colorado, so that would be unnecessary. Perhaps a law which would be able to sue anyone suing women which had a medical procedure in Colorado for the. amount of 20.000usd. Lawyers will have a field day with this.

Dutchy wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

When the National News is crying about something going on in Texas, then, I know we must be doing the right thing.

International news even. Strange criteria though. You must be sarcastic about this one, But you think it is a good idea for private citizens to sue each other. As others have said: this opens a can of worms. But then again, perhaps you were just trolling and I took the bate, shame on me.

I meant what I said...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

When the National News is crying about something going on in Texas, then, I know we must be doing the right thing.

International news even. Strange criteria though. You must be sarcastic about this one, But you think it is a good idea for private citizens to sue each other. As others have said: this opens a can of worms. But then again, perhaps you were just trolling and I took the bate, shame on me.

I meant what I said...

Then don't cry when somewhere is put into law that prohibits something you care about and the law permits your fellow citizens to sue you because of it. As I said, it is a very dangerous precedent.

With the new law can an individual woman sue the state of Texas for any complications to the unwanted pregnancy and any extra costs this causes.
IMO this show how far behind the USA is from the most of the rest of the western world. I often feel that USA in some areas haven't evolved a bit since 1775
or even the medieval times. I also agree with those who says that those who support this law have the same mentality as the talibans/conservative muslims.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

When the National News is crying about something going on in Texas, then, I know we must be doing the right thing.

International news even. Strange criteria though. You must be sarcastic about this one, But you think it is a good idea for private citizens to sue each other. As others have said: this opens a can of worms. But then again, perhaps you were just trolling and I took the bate, shame on me.

I meant what I said...

Why do you feel it is appropriate for the state to totally determine a woman’s reproductive choices?

The sick irony of this Texas law is that all anti-abortion supporters are likely anti-Communist but they are now accepting with the citizen lawsuits the things they decry of current China and in the past the USSR and East Germany where people will snitch on their family members for a few more crumbs of food, western clothes and other benefits.

There is a saying in the USA, 'snitches get stitches' and I suspect some of those that bring these obscene citizen lawsuits will end up with 'stitches' or far worse violence on them, destroy families all for 'a few pieces of silver'. I hope some very rich left leaning activists step in to help women in Texas get abortions in states where still legal, willing to take on the legal costs of the citizen lawsuits.

The other danger from this law and the US Supreme Court's decision not to prevent the Texas law from going into effect is to eviscerate the 4th and 14th Amendment (4th - right to not be subject to illegal search and seizures, 14th power of the Federal government over the states, originally to enforce the ban on slavery). This could destroy a lot of reasonable Federal regulations, including civil rights, voting rights, GLTBQ+ rights and so on.

Aaron747 wrote:

Negative - nobody has tried to make wholesale manufacture or purchase of ammunition a crime at the federal level, enforced by civilians. Just straight up false. There have been proposals and bans on specific categories of ammunition as well as magazines, but what you’re describing does not exist.

Unfortunately, you are too technical, yes the democrats have been trying to get gun control laws passed at the federal level for years and have failed, show me where I said they were trying to pass a law saying that citizens can sue, your claim is straight up false.
You are joining a sub-discussion where we are talking in general about the ways that the republican have been using the state legislatures to push their political agenda's versus the democrats who prefer to use the federal government.

ltbewr wrote:

The other danger from this law and the US Supreme Court's decision not to prevent the Texas law from going into effect is to eviscerate the 4th and 14th Amendment (4th - right to not be subject to illegal search and seizures, 14th power of the Federal government over the states, originally to enforce the ban on slavery). This could destroy a lot of reasonable Federal regulations, including civil rights, voting rights, GLTBQ+ rights and so on.

Question, on what basis would the SCOTUS rule on this law which has not yet been challenged at the state or federal level, I know there are exceptions which is what I am inquiring about, but the SCOTUS usually accepts cases that have already been challenged within the state then referred.