That’s not surprising, because you know about defendant class actions, and there’s only a handful or articles about those because they’re basically never used
Actually, she’s specifically a conservative woman. Unless you think her judgement springs from her womb in some way?
Why just residents of TX? Everyone is allowed to sue under the law (except TX officers). They could sue you or me.
ETA: And both of our answers would be that we aren’t suing anyone under the law, so why are we even here having to fill out this paperwork, and can you just dismiss this frivolous suit already? Why did you think I might sue an abortion provider? Because TX said I could? To conjectural; too distant of a harm.
That first part is a big assumption. If such a thing was allowed, you would literally be suing everyone in the entire world except for TX state officials. I’ve never once been to TX. Just because I might theoretically sue one day is not enough to give someone standing because it is too theoretical and conjectural. I mean, maybe one day I drive drunk and crash into your car. You can’t sue me and get an injunction because that might happen.
So I filled out all this paperwork for nothing?
I disagree with the first sentence.
The bolded part is hilarious.
Only Texas residents get to shop for jurisdiction, for obvious reasons. But you have a point, I guess.
You don’t have to actually try to enforce a law before someone can seek injunctive relief via s. 1983. This hypothetical class of defendants would be the class of people empowered by the state to enforce an arguably unconstitutional law.
I don’t think Los Angeles v Lyons is still controlling on injunctive relief?
I think so, not because I’m thrilled with abortions but because the knock-on effects of this law will be terrible.
I could argue against Prohibition not because I’m pro-drunks but because the knock-on effects of that constitutional amendment were terrible and we’re still dealing with some of them a century later.
Reducing the number of abortions is a laudable idea but this is a terrible way to go about it, which will result in more suffering not less.
No one dies because they can’t make it to Catholic Mass.
Women do die when access to abortion is cut off. Medical abortion is statistically safer than pregnancy. Desperate women (who may desperate for a variety of reasons) all too often resort to unsafe abortions, do-it-yourself abortions, and such abortions are even more unsafe than pregnancy. Pre-Roe women did die from botched/bad/illegal abortions but who cares, right? They’re just slutty whores who deserve to suffer and die for not being walking wombs, right?
And once the babies are born it’s very clear that the state of Texas, and all the other anti-abortion people (including those on this board) have zero interest in the young human beings from that point forward. The Republicans/far right/religious types do jack to help new parents, systematically OPPOSING child care, universal medical coverage, special educational support for disabled children, and help for families in poverty. All the anti-abortion crowd cares about is that the babies are born - once they’re here they don’t give a damn, especially if those “precious babies” are any shade other than White and any religion other than some version of Protestant. Then there’s the support for the death penalty that often seems to walk hand-in-hand with this stance - WTF? It’s OK to take away the rights of a woman and force her to risk her own health and life to bring the baby into the world but once the kid is here it’s OK to turn around and kill him?
I’ll grant that the Catholic Church in its current form is at least somewhat consistent in that they are not only anti-abortion but also anti-death penalty, that at least is a consistent pro-life stance, but the rest of this crowd yammering for “save the babies!” who are also gung-ho with the state killing people who are adult are raving hypocrites.
Here’s an idea - men should stop telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. THAT would help!
And yet, most schools districts in the US are still segregated. And not just by ethnicity but also by wealth.
Most people in this country are in favor of first trimester abortions, and even those that aren’t are OK with exceptions for rape and incest. How about the minority in Texas stop dictating to the majority - in Texas or otherwise - how this should be handled?
“Majority rules” is first trimester abortions for all, up to viability for rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother. Anything stricter is the minority dictating to the majority.
To protect the rights of citizens that can be adversely affected/have their constitutional rights taken away by bad Texas law.
The question is whether or not this situation rises to that level.
Given the track record of the states in regards to citizen rights I’m not sure the Feds can do much worse. Up until 1865 11 states in the south bought and sold human beings as if they were animals. Over the centuries states have often done a terrible job of protecting their own citizens, allowing exploitation and abuse by the powerful elite of the masses, allowing racial, ethnic, and religious oppression.
As someone belonging to several groups oppressed in the past and a couple still having issues in the present, I am GLAD when the Feds step in to protect folks like me from the White, wealthy, Christian men trying to impose their will over my body and life.
Yes, it’s “destabilizing” because it upsets the old order with the White, wealthy, Christian men (WWCM) on top. How dare all those other people get uppity and think they’re equal human beings! But I don’t like the “old order” because I belong to none of those four descriptors, meaning in such a society I would always be a second-class citizen no matter what I did or accomplished (well, maybe I could acquire wealth, but never the other three qualifications for being a full human being. OK, I could pass for White in the capital W sense, even if I’m not. Still not enough).
MOST people in this country are NOT WWCM’s - they lack one or more of those qualifications. The more such they lack the more they will be in favor of “destabilizing” and upsetting the old order.
And I think, long term, that’s a good thing.
I’ll respond to your post more fully because I have to run now, but you concede that abortion is at least something that is not a good thing that should be more widespread. In fact, it is “laudable” to reduce their instance.
But a person who takes just an extra step, feels more firmly about it than you do, and says we need to do more than just that, then that person deserves all of the invective in the rest of your post?
I want you to understand that we share a common goal: reduce deaths around abortions to the absolute minimum possible.
I also want you to understand that we have VERY different ideas of how to reach those goals.
In fact they are so different that yes, I DO have what you call “invective” to people diametrically opposed to what I think is the proper course to pursue because their road leads to immense suffering among those already born.
Don’t take it all personally - only the parts that apply to you.
I mean, if you ARE so pro-life that you not only opposed to abortion but also the death penalty I don’t carry quite the same level of opposition. I don’t agree with that stance in all particulars but at least you’re consistent. If you support freer and easier access to all forms of birth control great! Because that helps prevent the problem from arising in the first place.
I honestly don’t know all the details of your position. I do know that I disagree with your stance on abortion access.
I’m confused. The “minority in Texas” you allude to would be the majority coalition in the Texas legislature.
How is that confusing?
The people elected to the legislature in Texas are only a very small fraction of the total population of Texas. There are 29 million people in Texas, only 150 of whom are in the legislature.
Oh, wait - maybe you think that those elected actually represent the majority of people in Texas? How naive. Look at how gerrymandered the legislative districts in Texas are.
That is the presumption, yes. Nationwide most Americans would allow abortions well past six weeks, but nearly half of the Texas populace, and a majority in each legislative chamber, supports a six-week ban. The majority of Texans would ban all abortions, even before six weeks.
ETA: I know, that last sentence surprised me too.
No, a “majority in each legislative chamber” is NOT “half the population”. For damn sure MY elected reps don’t always vote in accord with what I’d want, and those who get elected that I voted against even more so.
The ONLY way to know that “half the population” actually wants something is a state-wide referendum. Even then it’s only the opinion of those who actually want to vote.
Heart disease is a bad thing, and it would be better if we had less of it, but if someone’s arguing that we should, therefore, criminalize coronary bypass procedures, I’d have some choice words to describe that person.
Why would a referendum be warranted when the elected legislature actually passes a six-week ban, and polls indicate a majority of Texans would support an even more restrictive ban?
~Max, not a Texan
Please direct me to information on this poll which indicates over half of Texas want a complete and total ban on all abortions for any reason. Because even most anti-abortion people I’m aware of allow for the life of the mother, and quite a few exceptions for rape and incest.
Found this from a Texas OB/GYN doctor. It raises some legal and medical issues in regards to this law. It’s 33 minutes, with approximately the last half being answering questions from the internet.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply anything about rape or medical exceptions. Just the timeframe being less than six weeks.
This was the first poll I found and it seems to disagree with your position. Back in March, when the law in Texas was actually less strict, a majority of people wanted the law to be about the same or less strict. Do you have a cite for your claims?