# Texas Law is unenforceable **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2021, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994 "2021-09-02T17:21:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/121 "2021-09-04T02:36:23Z")
I don’t disagree. It was a made-for-social media event. We have bursts of passion but we can’t sustain it. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/122 "2021-09-04T06:24:31Z")
Can Congress do something? Nancy Pelosi has been making some noises about a law to codify Roe v Wade into statutory law. (It has no hint of a trace of a chance of passing in the current Senate, but possibly in some future Congress?) Will that suffice to invalidate the Texas law? Or, can Congress pass a law to specifically attack the kind of strategy that is written into the Texas law? ETA: **Sherrerd** suggests, above, that a sufficiently outraged populace can fix this. So, could a sufficiently outraged populace elect the kind of Congress (and President) to do this? ---
**Author:** ![phs3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@phs3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phs3)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/123 "2021-09-04T06:30:53Z")
…or make it “voting for a Republican” in a blue state. That’s the petard… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/124 "2021-09-04T06:53:09Z")
And we see why conservatives are so, so dangerous to this country. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/125 "2021-09-04T07:21:37Z")
Some interesting points: [![](https://i.imgur.com/sB4Wc3J.jpg) ](https://i.imgur.com/sB4Wc3J.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/126 "2021-09-04T07:44:00Z")
I just saw this: > **[Texas Planned Parenthoods Granted Restraining Order Against Anti-Abortion...](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2021/09/03/407758/texas-planned-parenthoods-seek-restraining-order-against-anti-abortion-group-over-new-law/)** > > The law allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or helps someone get an abortion after roughly six weeks. If successful, the plaintiff could be awarded at least $10,000. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/127 "2021-09-04T10:49:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Short of stacking the court I see no way to change the makeup of the court for decades. Actually… there are alternatives. Which are illegal and therefore not to be discussed on this forum, nor are they anything I would condone or do or in any way support or advocate. But given the January 6 insurrection I wouldn’t dismiss illicit and/or violent alternatives to “wait until justices retire or die” or “pack the court”. If I can see this, surely others of less moral fiber can see this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/128 "2021-09-04T11:29:00Z")
As to the Uber question: > **[Lyft and Uber to cover legal fees of drivers sued under Texas anti-abortion law](https://www.theverge.com/22656392/lyft-uber-legal-fees-drivers-lawsuit-texas-sb8-abortion-law)** > > The law lets citizens sue people “aiding and abetting” abortions ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/129 "2021-09-04T12:44:04Z")
What happens if, six months from now, new technology allows doctors to detect the fetal ‘**[cardiac flutter](https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html)**’ activity that is essentially the trigger for this law … at only three weeks of pregnancy ? ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/130 "2021-09-04T14:22:04Z")
Don’t the idiots in Texas realize that this law will have the greatest impact on those who can’t afford to go out of the state to get an abortion? So now these same people will have children that they may not be able to afford without public assistance of some sort. Then the same idiots will be screaming that tax payers shouldn’t be supporting children and the parents who had them after forcing them to have said children. Is the long term goal to get poor people (primarily, people of color and other dems) to stop reproducing? Maybe forced sterilizations? It sounds far-fetched but it is Texas. Texas wants to secede? Good riddance. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/131 "2021-09-04T14:36:51Z")
But who says that they’re going to expand benefits? See, the cruelty is the point. They’ll cut welfare at the same time they’re banning abortion. They’ll just build new prisons. And it’s not just in Texas - this is the boiler plate for much of the South and other ‘red’ states. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/132 "2021-09-04T15:58:47Z")
> **[GoDaddy cut off Texas Right to Life’s abortion ‘whistleblowing’ website, and...](https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-right-for-life-abortion-whistleblowing-site)** > > Activists have been flooding the site with fake tips, too > On Friday, Texas Right to Life had to find a new home on the web, because hosting provider GoDaddy gave the group 24 hours to find a different place to park its website. “We have informed [prolifewhistleblower.com](http://prolifewhistleblower.com) they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service,” [a spokesperson told _The New York Times_](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/technology/texas-abortion-law-website-tiktok.html) and _The Verge_ . > > By late Friday, it appears it found that home: Epik, the provider that also helped save [controversial sites Gab](https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/5/18049132/gab-social-network-online-synagogue-shooting-deplatforming-return-godaddy-paypal-stripe-ban), [social media platform Parler](https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/17/22236178/parler-resurfaces-sunday-app-banned), and [internet hate forum 8chan](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/5/20754943/8chan-epik-offline-voxility-service-cutoff-hate-speech-ban) when other web service providers wouldn’t take them, is now listed as the registrar for [prolifewhistleblower.com](http://prolifewhistleblower.com) as well. The site is still having some trouble staying online though: as of 4AM ET Saturday, we saw HTTP 503 error codes when trying to access it. [According to _Ars Technica_](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/texas-abortion-snitch-website-kicked-off-godaddy-for-invading-peoples-privacy/), it tried to use Digital Ocean as a hosting provider first, but may have fallen afoul of that provider’s rules as well and is not hosted there anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/133 "2021-09-05T00:52:44Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > What happens if, six months from now, new technology allows doctors to detect the fetal ‘**[cardiac flutter](https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html)**’ activity that is essentially the trigger for this law … at only three weeks of pregnancy ? Of course the “heartbeat” produced by these machines is faked. There’s no actual sound produced by the not-yet-a-heart inside a 6-week-old embryo: > [@](#): > > Technically, the heart sounds that the machine produces are not the actual sound of the fetus’s heart beating. As a product manual for one such device explains, the sound is the amplified version of the difference between the transmitted and received signals. “It is important to remember that the sound you hear is an artificial sound, the frequency (pitch) of which is proportional to the velocity of the moving target,” the manual reads. “It is not the real sound made by blood rushing through an artery or vein, or movement of the fetal heart.” … And of course “fetus” is reserved for development far past what the Texas law references: > [@](#): > > … “Fetal heartbeat” is more of a legal term than a medical one, as some of the state laws specifically define a fetus as existing from the moment of conception. In medicine, however, a fetus doesn’t exist until eight weeks after fertilization, or at the end of the 10th week of pregnancy, when all the major organ systems have begun to form. Before then, the correct term is an embryo. … > **[When Are Heartbeats Audible During Pregnancy? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/)** > > Q: When is the human heart fully developed, and when are heartbeats audible during pregnancy? A: A developing heart has all of its primary structures after about nine weeks of pregnancy. Some forms of ultrasound can detect cardiac activity in an... ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/134 "2021-09-05T00:57:32Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > They’ll cut welfare at the same time they’re banning abortion. They’ll just build new prisons. And it’s not just in Texas - this is the boiler plate for much of the South and other ‘red’ states. Yes. People have been looking for ways to re-institute slavery for _decades_. Keep poor women pumping out those babies and put them right into the workforce (inside “juvenile facilities” or what have you). After all, we just can’t _afford_ antiquated child-labor laws, given all the challenges we face!!!11!!! And these children deserve the chance to learn some _real_ values, even if the only way to do it is with their legs shackled to the work benches!!!1!!! With the current radically-activist majority on today’s Supreme Court, there’s no real reason that this dream can’t become a reality. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/135 "2021-09-05T01:15:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > > …Possibly an outraged populace. It’s up to the people of the United States to let their elected representatives know that this is another one of those times----which have occurred several times in our history—when it is appropriate and even urgent that the number of Justices be changed. > > Short of stacking the court I see no way to change the makeup of the court for decades. > > And Biden and Dems have shown no interest in stacking the court. The number of Justices has changed SIX TIMES in U.S. history. The choice of the word “stacking” is purely subjective. As the number of circuit courts has risen, so has the number of Justices, but we haven’t kept pace for a while. With thirteen circuit courts (aka US Courts of Appeals), “thirteen” would be a logical number of Justices. We began with six Justices. The workload rose with the population of the country. Was increasing the number of Justices “stacking”? Or was it a logical response to the growth of the nation and its business? Does the fact that politics played a role in the discussion of all six of those size changes, mean that there should be no further size changes? If so, why? How is that a logical bar to making a seventh change in the size of the Court? There is no logical–and certainly no Constitutional–reason that “nine” must be the number of Justices in perpetuity. Those who insist on using terms like ‘stacking’ or ‘packing’ have no reasonable rationale for such use, given that the number of Justices has varied so often over the course of the nation’s history. [The Court as an Institution - Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20Justices%20on,an%20average%20of%2016%20years). ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/136 "2021-09-06T01:19:16Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The number of Justices has changed SIX TIMES in U.S. history. Not in a very long time, and not to gain more than a subtle partisan advantage. I’m for a bigger court if decisions stop being en banc. I think this would discourage highly controversial decisions and allow the court to take on more cases. But increasing the size of the court just to effect a short-term change in partisan composition I am against. All it will do is help the GOP to win the next election. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/137 "2021-09-06T18:46:11Z")
Yes, am I sure that you support this to decrease the workload of say, poor Elena Kagan, forefingers and thumb to her brow after too many nights of riding circuit. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2021, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/138 "2021-09-06T18:57:48Z")
An insufficient respond to judicial activism will also help the GOP win the next election. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2021, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/139 "2021-09-07T00:13:51Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > But increasing the size of the court just to effect a short-term change in partisan composition I am against. How did you feel about ‘refusing to vote on a legitimate nominee for SCOTUS’ in order to effect a short-term change in partisan composition? What I’m suggesting here is that Republicans took radical and unprecedented action to change the partisan make-up of SCOTUS. Moreover, the leader of the Senate Republicans has vowed to do it again if given the chance. So why are we concerned _only_ with what Democrats do? Why are Democrats obligated to passively stand by and watch Republicans effect radical change? Especially since changing the number of Justices is NOT a radical change—it would merely be the seventh time something happens in our history. (Not routine, perhaps, but certainly not radical.) \ > [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes, am I sure that you support this to decrease the workload of say, poor Elena Kagan, forefingers and thumb to her brow after too many nights of riding circuit. What an odd argument. I don’t recall anyone bringing up either the changes in the duties of the US judiciary (which used to include SCOTUS Justices traveling from town to town), or Elena Kagan in particular. What _I_ brought up was the fact that “nine Justices” is by no means a sacred number, given that the number has changed six times in our history. Why not a seventh? \ > [@asahi](#): > > An insufficient respond to judicial activism will also help the GOP win the next election. - Yes. The current radically-activist Supreme Court majority is far outside the US norm and far outside the sentiments of the majority of Americans on virtually every radical action they’ve taken. The very concept that citizen-bounty-hunters would be given the seal of approval by said radically-activist majority, should be enough to convince many that having a radically-activist majority on SCOTUS is antithetical to the values that created this nation. The solution is to make the radical activists something _other_ than a majority. A more moderate majority would better reflect the current state of American views—among everyone but the radical right, of course. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2021, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994/140 "2021-09-07T01:23:49Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > How did you feel about ‘refusing to vote on a legitimate nominee for SCOTUS’ in order to effect a short-term change in partisan composition? I was, and remain, against it. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Why are Democrats obligated to passively stand by and watch Republicans effect radical change? You personally have no such obligation. I support the leadership of the Democratic Party, including Pelosi and Biden, on this because increasing the size of the court polls badly now, and will, IMHO, poll worse if its succeeds. And then a resurgent GOP will make the court even bigger, or do something comparable. And that won’t poll as poorly because it will just look like an undoing of Democratic court packing. As for the Merrick Garland precedent, that just wasn’t as unpopular as something that will be called court packing. But there is a good chance the Garland precedent will come back to bite the GOP. Or maybe it won’t. People often do bad things and get away with it. The value of fighting back depends on circumstances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-is-unenforceable/949994.md?page=8)