# Texas Abortion Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281 "2015-01-08T02:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/61 "2015-01-14T11:49:00Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > OK, here’s an analogy. You live in a country whose legal code, embodied in the constitution, punishes a lot of crimes (including adultery and theft) with death. Do you just say “well, I can’t change the law, so we just have to resign ourselves to executing these people”. Or do you try to kill the (excessively broad) death penalty laws by hedging them around with various barriers, stringent regulations, and other things that eventually makes them inoperative? Excluded middle. I try to kill the laws (so to speak) by forthrightly attacking the terrible nature of punishing theft with death. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/62 "2015-01-14T13:22:37Z")
**Hector** has a point, one which I hope will not be explored in this thread after this post. If I believed abortion was literally the killing of children (or the moral equivalent of the killing of children) and I lived in a country where about a million children were killed every year with little or no restrictions, I can see the point of doing whatever it takes to stop the slaughter. It would be like the Holocaust happening every six years. I think that point is not related to whether the Texas law imposes an undue burden on abortion given the current SCOTUS precedent, although it might inform the views of a few of the Justices in how they rule. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/63 "2015-01-14T17:59:10Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **Hector** has a point, one which I hope will not be explored in this thread after this post. If I believed abortion was literally the killing of children (or the moral equivalent of the killing of children) and I lived in a country where about a million children were killed every year with little or no restrictions, I can see the point of doing whatever it takes to stop the slaughter. It would be like the Holocaust happening every six years. > > I think that point is not related to whether the Texas law imposes an undue burden on abortion given the current SCOTUS precedent, although it might inform the views of a few of the Justices in how they rule. Or, (referring to my earlier post) if one truly opposed abortion to that degree, how could one not endorse and support a tried-and-true method to collapse the abortion rate and save a lot of money in the process (although money should be no object)? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/64 "2015-01-14T19:27:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excluded middle. > > I try to kill the laws (so to speak) by forthrightly attacking the terrible nature of punishing theft with death. Isn’t that kind of trying to impose your personal morality on society pretty much exactly what you’ve accused hundreds of people on this board of? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/65 "2015-01-14T19:43:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Isn’t that kind of trying to impose your personal morality on society pretty much exactly what you’ve accused hundreds of people on this board of? No. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/66 "2015-01-14T21:34:44Z")
Then the distinction has escaped me. I’ll have to carefully parse your next “liberal hypocrites!” thread. [checks watch] ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/67 "2021-08-30T15:57:06Z")
Didn’t want to start an entirely new thread for this, so bumping this one instead, since it has to do with Texas abortions: > **[Fifth Circuit cancels hearing on Texas 'heartbeat' abortion law days before...](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fifth-circuit-cancels-hearing-texas-heartbeat-abortion-law)** > > A Texas law that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected is set to go into effect on Wednesday after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals canceled a hearing that was supposed to take place Monday. A law is set to take effect in Texas that would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is discovered. While it does not formally criminalize abortion, it does impose a $10,000-or-more penalty per abortion. It would also allow people to be sued for assisting an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/68 "2021-08-30T17:34:45Z")
Here’s a NY Times article that discusses how radical this approach is, and broader implications of this kind of citizen-lawsuit method of banning something (it’s an op-ed, not a regular article): > **[Opinion | Texas Tries to Upend the Legal System With Its Abortion Law...](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/opinion/texas-abortion-law-reward.html)** > > A court battle has begun over the state’s effort to turn its citizenry into a sort of Stasi.  But, what I really wanted to mention was that I miss @Bryan_Ekers on this site. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/69 "2021-08-30T21:01:16Z")
Thanks, but I’m kind-of still here. Admittedly not as active as I once was. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/70 "2021-08-30T21:03:31Z")
Welcome kind-of back! ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/71 "2021-08-30T21:30:27Z")
What I’m trying to understand is why Texas is setting up the law this way, so that there are no criminal penalties but private citizen can sue to win money out of other women getting abortions. I can only guess that it has to do with incentive - that if people sniff money, they’ll have much more personal reason to get involved and win bounty money than if abortion were simply criminalized and an overworked district attorney or prosecutor couldn’t be bothered to prosecute abortion. Or - maybe it’s because Roe v Wade mandates that abortion remain legal, and so Texas is taking the approach of “Okay, then, we’ll keep it technically legal, but you can expect to go bankrupt if you perform abortions?” ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/72 "2021-08-30T22:50:44Z")
[Slate had a pretty good article about the motivation behind structing the law this way.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/texas-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade.html) Essentially, they’re trying to prevent federal courts from enjoining the law by removing the state as a party. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2021, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/73 "2021-08-30T23:03:13Z")
Yup, it’s an end-run around Roe. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2021, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/74 "2021-08-31T21:12:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Stealing again from Scalia, nobody would say that a 1 cent tax on religious books would survive constitutional scrutiny as it is meant to directly infringe the first amendment. A state sales tax which collect a 6 percent tax on all consumer products, including books, and therefore religious books, is judged on an undue basis standard. But one can easily see the difference. The question is whether a general law that applies to everything nevertheless imposes an undue burden on religion. How about the opposite. Several states exempt the Bible and other religious texts from sales tax. Some states define religous books narrowly. For example, in Georgia, the Bible, the Torah, and Koran are tax-exempt, but Hindu texts, as one example, are taxable. Is this an undue burden on Hinduism? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2021, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/75 "2021-08-31T23:35:01Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > [Slate had a pretty good article about the motivation behind structing the law this way.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/texas-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade.html) Essentially, they’re trying to prevent federal courts from enjoining the law by removing the state as a party. Right. That is the game, but it won’t work. If you take the first week of Con Law class you make the (clearly correct) argument that by setting up this tort action, the state has allowed private parties to deny others (what is now at least) a guaranteed Constitutional right. A judge would laugh at a state coming into court saying “not our fault.” > [@OldGuy](#): > > How about the opposite. Several states exempt the Bible and other religious texts from sales tax. Some states define religous books narrowly. For example, in Georgia, the Bible, the Torah, and Koran are tax-exempt, but Hindu texts, as one example, are taxable. Is this an undue burden on Hinduism? I didn’t remember writing this, but it was seven years ago. I’m not familiar with GA law, but I would agree. The state cannot discriminate against Hindu texts that way. Then I can probably guess your next question: What is a religion that the state has to recognize? If I call myself the Church of Today and it consists of me and my buddies having beer in the garage, but we call it a religion, is it one? Who decides? The state? That’s a dangerous proposition and one courts have historically ran away from deciding. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2021, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/76 "2021-08-31T23:49:18Z")
I always love a good abortion thread because we talk past each other by starting from completely different fundamental premises. The pro-life side (yes, let’s not argue over that term) comes from the idea that what is happening is simple murder; the taking of an innocent human life. Nobody has the right to do that. We aren’t saying that women cannot have all the sex they choose to have, but at the end of the day it is an innocent human life. We can’t allow someone to just kill such a vulnerable creature. The pro-choice side (yes, let’s not argue over that term) comes from a complete 180 degree perspective. They look at the terrible consequences a woman would suffer, most likely not with the support, wanted or not, from the father. They don’t view the entity inside the woman as a human life, and would disagree with my use of the word “entity.” They view this as a woman’s rights, indeed a human rights issue in the completely opposite direction. So when we say things to each other, we are on different planets from the outset. But, as a constitutional matter, the case law is an absolute mess. No judge can say what an undue burden is until five Justices just pick something out of a hat and say what it is. That gives Roberts and Kavanaugh, maybe two Justices who would pull a _Casey_ and uphold _Casey_ and _Roe_ under _stare decisis_ and decide that, yes, this is a terrible line of cases with no legal justification and it is time to overrule them. I think from a legal perspective, when you get a couple of beers in a pro-choice person, they admit that _Roe_ was a terrible case and it is inconsistent with every other area of law save abortion. It’s reasoning was laughable and pretty much non-existent. I would love to debate someone about how _Roe_ was correctly decided as a matter of law. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2021, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/77 "2021-09-01T00:01:04Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The pro-choice side (yes, let’s not argue over that term) comes from a complete 180 degree perspective. They look at the terrible consequences a woman would suffer, most likely not with the support, wanted or not, from the father. They don’t view the entity inside the woman as a human life, and would disagree with my use of the word “entity.” They view this as a woman’s rights, indeed a human rights issue in the completely opposite direction. This is an incorrect characterization. I feel like I shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term for the same reason I don’t think I should be forced to donate a kidney to my own kid. Both involve undergoing a drastic medical procedure to save the life of a third party. I am pretty sure I’d donate a kidney in a heartbeat if my son needed it, but it ought not be compelled. The same for undergoing a pregnancy and birth. The fact that I would have to have another C-section makes the comparison even more apt. ETA: the “talking past” I always see in these threads is that men think abortion is a debate about having or not having a child. Women understand it as a debate about being pregnant. Men so often hand wave off the pregnancy itself as irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2021, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/78 "2021-09-01T00:18:44Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > This is an incorrect characterization. I feel like I shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term for the same reason I don’t think I should be forced to donate a kidney to my own kid. Both involve undergoing a drastic medical procedure to save the life of a third party. I am pretty sure I’d donate a kidney in a heartbeat if my son needed it, but it ought not be compelled. The same for undergoing a pregnancy and birth. The fact that I would have to have another C-section makes the comparison even more apt. And I appreciate that, but what you are talking about is the very thing that every woman had to do for all of us to be here. To discuss it like it is donating a kidney is, IMHO, contrary to the idea of life itself, and this idea that it is an invasion or some “third party” inside you goes against nature. It’s how both you and I got here. > [@MandaJo](#): > > ETA: the “talking past” I always see in these threads is that men think abortion is a debate about having or not having a child. Women understand it as a debate about being pregnant. Men so often hand wave off the pregnancy itself as irrelevant. And that’s very fair. I don’t know what a pregnancy is like. Point taken. But like everything else I get to have an opinion. I hear so many times that men aren’t even allow to have an opinion on this issue. I reject that view for the same reason that, say, you don’t own a gun and want to make it illegal for me to own one. You still can have an opinion on that. You are a human being. I have never and will never be pregnant, but I think I have a vested interest in my children which is completely disavowed by current law, and laws just made up by judges. That is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2021, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/79 "2021-09-01T00:25:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And I appreciate that, but what you are talking about is the very thing that every woman had to do for all of us to be here. To discuss it like it is donating a kidney is, IMHO, contrary to the idea of life itself, and this idea that it is an invasion or some “third party” inside you goes against nature. It’s how both you and I got here. I don’t know how you got here, but I got here because a woman chose to give birth. Some women do that, y’know? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2021, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281/80 "2021-09-01T00:25:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And I appreciate that, but what you are talking about is the very thing that every woman had to do for all of us to be here. To discuss it like it is donating a kidney is, IMHO, contrary to the idea of life itself, and this idea that it is an invasion or some “third party” inside you goes against nature. It’s how both you and I got here. (Virtually) Everyone is the result of a sex act, but we don’t expect women to submit to that for the good of the species. I cannot see how an appeal to “the idea of life itself” justifies forcing me to endure a pregnancy if I don’t choose to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-abortion-case/709281.md?page=5)