The Texas abortion law

[Xenophon]

I don’t think that the Republican-controlled state legislators care about what the majority of Americans think. Or even the majority of people in their state. If they alienate the rabidly anti-abortion Christian Right, they will lose their control over those states.

That's precisely why they need to be voted out. Why should that be so difficult when this rabidly anti-abortion stance alienates even the majority of the people in their own states?

I think there are a number of factors at play here. First, the partisan nature of politics now means that those that favor the Republican party are left with little choice but to hold their nose and vote R even if they disagree with some individual policy choices (not unlike many of the Republicans I know who didn't like Trump but couldn't bring themselves to vote for anyone else).

Second, you may be overestimating how unpopular this decision is. I haven't seen much recent polling on it for Texas specifically but as recently as March some 44% of Texans supported pretty heavy restrictions on abortion and only 38% said that it was completely up to the woman. It is always odd to me that when Americans are polled about about upholding Roe v Wade the majority is in favor but when you start talking about specific restrictions the public often supports things that go beyond what the courts would normally say qualify.

Third, don't forget how heavily stacked the deck is in favor of Republicans here. You can take a look at how heavily they are favored here. Long story short, it would require quite a significant shift in demographics to make any real difference in either the State or Federal representation of Texans.

There could maybe be some movement if there was just a ton of decent moderate candidates that could pull from the right a bit while still entertaining left leaning voters, such as Beto (at least before his presidential run, not to mention needing an opponent as derisive as Cruz). Alas I'm not particularly hopeful on this front currently. I think our best is to support legal challenges to the ruling and hope that the courts fall in our favor.

[Gunnar]

That's precisely why they need to be voted out. Why should that be so difficult when this rabidly anti-abortion stance alienates even the majority of the people in their own states?

I think there are a number of factors at play here. First, the partisan nature of politics now means that those that favor the Republican party are left with little choice but to hold their nose and vote R even if they disagree with some individual policy choices (not unlike many of the Republicans I know who didn't like Trump but couldn't bring themselves to vote for anyone else).

Though I hate this reality, I can't honestly deny it, based on some of my own Republican acquaintances and relatives.

Second, you may be overestimating how unpopular this decision is. I haven't seen much recent polling on it for Texas specifically but as recently as March some 44% of Texans supported pretty heavy restrictions on abortion and only 38% said that it was completely up to the woman. It is always odd to me that when Americans are polled about about upholding Roe v Wade the majority is in favor but when you start talking about specific restrictions the public often supports things that go beyond what the courts would normally say qualify.

That analysis doesn't leave a whole lot of room for optimism, does it? I can't help hoping, though, that the unpopularity of that decision will increase with time, rather than go the other way.

Third, don't forget how heavily stacked the deck is in favor of Republicans here. You can take a look at how heavily they are favored here. Long story short, it would require quite a significant shift in demographics to make any real difference in either the State or Federal representation of Texans.

That is the most depressing part of your analysis, and is in line with my own worst fears about the political situation.

There could maybe be some movement if there was just a ton of decent moderate candidates that could pull from the right a bit while still entertaining left leaning voters, such as Beto (at least before his presidential run, not to mention needing an opponent as derisive as Cruz). Alas I'm not particularly hopeful on this front currently. I think our best is to support legal challenges to the ruling and hope that the courts fall in our favor.

Thanks for your informative, though sobering response. Here's hoping that our best hopes about growing legal challenges to that ruling will pan out. I think we are on a razor's edge of losing our democracy and descending into a theocratic-like tyranny, and that the results of the next mid-term elections will be crucial in deciding which way we will eventually go.

One of the worst things today's hard right conservatism is doing to our nation is, at least in effect or by implication, attempting to characterize the very idea of democracy itself as something inherently undesirable and dangerous.

[Xenophon]

Though I hate this reality, I can't honestly deny it, based on some of my own Republican acquaintances and relatives.

Partly in their defence I'm left in the same boat. I think many on this board have some more moderate or right-leaning views but are left unable to support the GOP in its current state. If you truly believed that an abortion at 6 weeks was tantamount to baby murder it is hard to imagine how you could behave differently than the currently are. I obviously don't agree with the point but I at least understand their reaction.

That analysis doesn't leave a whole lot of room for optimism, does it? I can't help hoping, though, that the unpopularity of that decision will increase with time, rather than go the other way.

I suppose it depends. I think the battle here looks fairly bleak at the present moment but I don't think all hope is lost. Demographics do continue to shift here in a way that in time could result in fairly significant political changes. It just takes time that many individuals don't always have.

One thing I've always wondered is if Supreme Court were to rule on abortion in a big way on a more recent case if it maybe wouldn't help the public opinion shift. Obergefell v. Hodges was fundamental in helping turn public opinion on same-sex marriage, not the other way around. Perhaps further legal defense could help cement the right to abortion in the public's mind.

[Xenophon]

There has been at least some good news around this as well.

A Texas judge has thrown a roadblock up in favor of Planned Parenthood.

Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted Planned Parenthood a temporary restraining order against the anti-abortion group, Texas Right to Life, blocking the group and its allies from using an unusual mechanism of the Texas law that enables private citizens to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks.

[toon]

But the part of the law that is incredible to me is that provision that allows anyone in the United States to sue anyone who aids in an abortion considered illegal by the state.

Not to make light of the gravity of abortion, but to hopefully help me understand the part quoted above.

1. My state has a law against purchasing, and using explosives without a license.
2. I drive to another state, which has no such law, and buy some explosives and set them off (in a way that breaks no federal laws, or laws of the state I was visiting).
3. My neighbor finds out about my road trip, and sues the manufacture and distributer of the explosives in the other state.

Is this sort of what the Texas law allows/outlines?

My understanding is that the law doesn't prohibit anyone from providing advice or assistance in obtaining an otherwise legal abortion in another state. It rather defines what is unlawful in Texas and then provides a mechanism for civil enforcement of that, including assistance in obtaining what has been then defined as unlawful.

That said, I'd be interested in the reactions to the following:

• A California law protecting the right to obtain an abortion, and providing for a civil cause of action against anyone who interferes or attempts to interfere with that right.

• A state law requiring a background check in the purchase of firearms, with the remedy being a civil cause of action sells or assists in the sale of a firearm without a background check, including gun shows.

• Similar laws regarding the provision and assistance of conversion therapy, hate speech, hate crimes, etc.

Seems like the better approach would be to just design a law to challenge or at least chip away at Roe v. Wade. And maybe this law will do that at the end of the day. But until then, it seems like a cheap way to circumvent Roe without considering the Pandora's box it opens.

[Res Ipsa]

Not to make light of the gravity of abortion, but to hopefully help me understand the part quoted above.

1. My state has a law against purchasing, and using explosives without a license.
2. I drive to another state, which has no such law, and buy some explosives and set them off (in a way that breaks no federal laws, or laws of the state I was visiting).
3. My neighbor finds out about my road trip, and sues the manufacture and distributer of the explosives in the other state.

Is this sort of what the Texas law allows/outlines?

My understanding is that the law doesn't prohibit anyone from providing advice or assistance in obtaining an otherwise legal abortion in another state. It rather defines what is unlawful in Texas and then provides a mechanism for civil enforcement of that, including assistance in obtaining what has been then defined as unlawful.

That said, I'd be interested in the reactions to the following:

• A California law protecting the right to obtain an abortion, and providing for a civil cause of action against anyone who interferes or attempts to interfere with that right.

• A state law requiring a background check in the purchase of firearms, with the remedy being a civil cause of action sells or assists in the sale of a firearm without a background check, including gun shows.

• Similar laws regarding the provision and assistance of conversion therapy, hate speech, hate crimes, etc.

Seems like the better approach would be to just design a law to challenge or at least chip away at Roe v. Wade. And maybe this law will do that at the end of the day. But until then, it seems like a cheap way to circumvent Roe without considering the Pandora's box it opens.

Because there is currently a Constitutional right to an abortion, your first example exists under federal law in the form of statutes enacted in response to the Ku Klux Klan. So, might have to brush off lots of dust and cobwebs...

But, in general, delegating law enforcement to bounty hunters is inefficient and, in my opinion, prone to abuse. It would also flood an already overburdened court system with questionable and frivolous cases. I see zero benefit to this style of legislation.

[toon]

My understanding is that the law doesn't prohibit anyone from providing advice or assistance in obtaining an otherwise legal abortion in another state. It rather defines what is unlawful in Texas and then provides a mechanism for civil enforcement of that, including assistance in obtaining what has been then defined as unlawful.

That said, I'd be interested in the reactions to the following:

• A California law protecting the right to obtain an abortion, and providing for a civil cause of action against anyone who interferes or attempts to interfere with that right.

• A state law requiring a background check in the purchase of firearms, with the remedy being a civil cause of action sells or assists in the sale of a firearm without a background check, including gun shows.

• Similar laws regarding the provision and assistance of conversion therapy, hate speech, hate crimes, etc.

Seems like the better approach would be to just design a law to challenge or at least chip away at Roe v. Wade. And maybe this law will do that at the end of the day. But until then, it seems like a cheap way to circumvent Roe without considering the Pandora's box it opens.

Because there is currently a Constitutional right to an abortion, your first example exists under federal law in the form of statutes enacted in response to the Ku Klux Klan. So, might have to brush off lots of dust and cobwebs...

But, in general, delegating law enforcement to bounty hunters is inefficient and, in my opinion, prone to abuse. It would also flood an already overburdened court system with questionable and frivolous cases. I see zero benefit to this style of legislation.

I think you may have a point with my first example. There is a current Constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, there's also a Constitutional right to free speech. Such a prohibition against interference if enforced by the state might likely fail because it was vague and overbroad. As I understand it, the Texas law attempts to make challenges difficult because it doesn't provide for state enforcement, at least not on the surface. I think the idea is that if you haven't yet been sued, you don't have standing. It seems like five justices may agree with that analysis (unless, of course, they're being disingenuous).

If the Court at the end of the day upholds this approach, then I think it opens the door to other states enacting similar "bounty hunter" laws. I'm not sure it's an inefficient approach if it shuts things down at the end of the day. It certainly is open to abuse and will flood overburdened courts. But when have abuse and overburdened courts been issues for zealots?

[Res Ipsa]

Because there is currently a Constitutional right to an abortion, your first example exists under federal law in the form of statutes enacted in response to the Ku Klux Klan. So, might have to brush off lots of dust and cobwebs...

But, in general, delegating law enforcement to bounty hunters is inefficient and, in my opinion, prone to abuse. It would also flood an already overburdened court system with questionable and frivolous cases. I see zero benefit to this style of legislation.

I think you may have a point with my first example. There is a current Constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, there's also a Constitutional right to free speech. Such a prohibition against interference if enforced by the state might likely fail because it was vague and overbroad. As I understand it, the Texas law attempts to make challenges difficult because it doesn't provide for state enforcement, at least not on the surface. I think the idea is that if you haven't yet been sued, you don't have standing. It seems like five justices may agree with that analysis (unless, of course, they're being disingenuous).

If the Court at the end of the day upholds this approach, then I think it opens the door to other states enacting similar "bounty hunter" laws. I'm not sure it's an inefficient approach if it shuts things down at the end of the day. It certainly is open to abuse and will flood overburdened courts. But when have abuse and overburdened courts been issues for zealots?

Here's a link to the federal statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 I don't think it would fail for either vagueness or over breadth. Note that it applies to anyone acting under color of a statute. And there's no question that the Texas bounty hunters are acting under color of a statute. The trick that the Texas statute tries to use is to avoid any action against a woman who seeks an abortion, as only she arguably would have standing under the statute. I'm not sure I understand your reference to free speech.

I'm not sure we can judge how all the justices will rule on the merits of a Constitutional challenge to the law based on the denial of an injunction. I haven't looked at state action cases in a long time, but, as the statute itself is state action, I'm not sure the court will buy into Texas's arguments.

I doubt this approach would shut things down. To enforce it, the private party has to file a lawsuit, which is public record. That would provide the opportunity for those who oppose the statute to give those who file suit the same kind of treatment that anti-abortion protestors have given anti-abortion clinics for years. I would expect citizen v. citizen conflict for years to come, all of whom can be armed.

[Alf'Omega]

241312464_407541664065190_5368150599348938968_n.jpg

[Some Schmo]

"Some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex."

Yes, some people are dumb as rocks. It's rare that more education leads to poorer decisions.

Withholding information will only make kids more curious, especially if you suddenly clam up when a subject is raised. If you make a big deal about something, your kids will think it's a big deal. I remember when I left the church, I went on a major drug and alcohol tour. I never would have done that without all the idiotic taboos and scare tactics.

I had the birds and bees talk with my daughter when she was seven (I wasn't planning to until she was a little older, but she asked about it). I told her the basics and her only reaction was, "Gross!" She'll soon be 21 and has never been pregnant. I couldn't have asked for anything more.