Jump to content

Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.


Recommended Posts

Merrick Garland drops the hammer...

The Justice Dept. sues Texas over its new restrictive abortion law.

The Justice Department sued Texas on Thursday over its recently enacted law that prohibits nearly all abortions in the state, the first significant step by the Biden administration to fight the nation’s most restrictive ban on abortion.

The department argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional. “It is settled constitutional law that ‘a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,’” the lawsuit said. “But Texas has done just that.” 

The department is seeking an injunction that would prohibit enforcement of the Texas law. “The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to uphold the rule of law,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a news conference at the Justice Department. “Today we fulfill that duty,” he said of the lawsuit.

The suit came days after the Supreme Court refused to block the Texas legislation, which bans all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy and makes no exceptions for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. It also allows anyone, regardless of whether they have any connection to an abortion, standing to sue those who perform or otherwise aid in the procedure, a novel legal concept.

The court stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law, but the way it was written could make it difficult to challenge in court, setting up a major shift in the fight over abortion rights and setting a path for other states to limit access to abortion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

you want a compromise? ok.... lets do this.... if you have a vagina, you get to decide both what goes into it, and what comes out of it. if you dont have one, you dont. full stop.

After giving this a bit more thought, this is yet another confirmation of why I think many people identify with Trump. He's an asshole. I think there is a bit of an asshole component in all

the funniest part of this attack on women's rights is the fact that these Texan cunts are screaming, 'my body, my choice' at anti vax anti mask rallies.

Posted Images

I'd bet Amy can run an old town drunk right out of the rack and the shack. She looks like she has some hate-fucks left to give. An old bracero weeth a beeeeeg sombrero and small huaraches might give her a moment of pleasure, ¿ eh hombre?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Liquid said:
20 hours ago, Venom said:

Fucking hell, my life has nothing to do with the issue. Zero.

You do understand both sides of the argument right?

Anyway, I might ask you the same question but it's irrelevant. 

  

Hey asswipe, I didn't ask what your life has to do with abortion I asked HOW you life is affected???

I can answer the question: Abortion affects my life the same way gay marriage does - ZERO! Therefor, I don't give a flying fuck what other people do with their bodies.

Why do you care?

I'll ask in a much nicer way.  V, why do you care that a woman gets an abortion?  I'll dumb it down even further to "why do you think most GOP folks care that a woman gets an abortion".  What is it to you and/or to them?  I don't get the argument for being anti-abortion, so please help me out.  

And any of the rest of you folks who have a strong feeling against abortion, I'd be happy to understand your rational argument against.  TIA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I'll ask in a much nicer way.  V, why do you care that a woman gets an abortion?  I'll dumb it down even further to "why do you think most GOP folks care that a woman gets an abortion".  What is it to you and/or to them?  I don't get the argument for being anti-abortion, so please help me out.  

And any of the rest of you folks who have a strong feeling against abortion, I'd be happy to understand your rational argument against.  TIA.

 

Please avoid any reference to your mythical sky friends in your rational argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Please avoid any reference to your mythical sky friends in your rational argument.

No, I disagree.  I'd be interested to see where the religious aspect of this comes into play.  IIRC from sunday school growing up, there was a lot of smiting and smoting and bashing the first born babies heads in against walls and all kinds of fun & games.  So curious where abortion comes in.

Speaking of which, I never understood the religious objection of vaccines either.  Maybe you guys could do a twofer explano......

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hobie1616 said:

Greg Abbott has a button on his desk to eliminate all rape in Texas

1408835489_ScreenShot2021-09-09at11_56_25AM.jpg.88675df8faef3af1639b48895516cffb.jpg

Eliminating all rape in Texas was so little of a challenge that it was almost not worth doing. It was not difficult, like asking grandparents to lay down their lives for the Texas economy, or onerous, like getting through a bill restricting reproductive freedom, or another bill restricting voting rights. It wasn’t even hard enough to be fun, like thwarting a mask mandate.

These things were all challenging endeavors and therefore worthy of effort, unlike eliminating all rape, which was going to be so easy it barely deserved a second thought. That was why it hadn’t gotten one. There were only so many hours in the day, and it seemed as if the best way to spend those hours was to make certain you were making the lives of women in the state of Texas hell, and creating additional hurdles for pregnant people. When you have many tasks to complete, the best practice is always to start with the most difficult and then leave the easy, doable ones for the last possible minute!

There was probably a button on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) desk somewhere, if you knew where to look, that you could push and eliminate all rape. That or someone would bring you a Diet Coke. One of those two things would happen. It might almost be worth pushing the button and finding out, except that if it did do what you hoped, it would make all your other accomplishments as governor look small and pitiful in comparison, and Diet Coke has a weird aftertaste.

Besides, eliminating all rapists from Texas would probably destroy some promising young men’s careers. It could also make people who had already had to suffer feel as if they had suffered for nothing. But the point was that it was so completely trivial to do that it wasn’t even something you needed to worry about or consider for more than a minute.

Everyone knows about the button, of course. That was why when people asked what you were going to do about your new onerous abortion law that did not include exceptions for victims of rape or incest, you could casually say, “Rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”

Which Abbott will do very soon! He is just busy not learning about history, or the mechanics of reproduction (feels needlessly invasive to understand how the uterus works; let its workings remain decently shrouded in mystery!). Not learning anything about either of these subjects, and discouraging others from doing so as well, takes a great deal of time and concentration and cannot be rushed.

But he is pretty sure the button is there, and he can press it any time he wants. One of so many reasons Texas is a great state to live in. Eliminating all rapists there is something that won’t take dealing with a backlog of thousands of rape kits and facing all the difficulties involved in bringing accused rapists to trial.

It is both easy and possible, because in Texas, rape is perpetrated by certain clearly identifiable people who can easily be taken from the streets in a flash, with a simple application of effort. It is not a crime most commonly perpetrated by people you know, but by easily identifiable monsters, just as easily stopped. Poof!

Though, nobody has done it yet, which is strange. It seemed like the sort of thing you would do right away if you had the capacity to do so. But of course just knowing he could do so probably allowed Abbott to work on other, more challenging things, such as increasing the difficulty of voting by mail and eliminating 24-hour polling places and making it increasingly impossibly difficult for people who wanted to terminate their pregnancies to do so. Knowing the button was there enabled the writing of things into law that otherwise would be unbearably cruel to victims of rape, such as a ban on abortions after six weeks, when it was extremely possible you would not even know you were pregnant.

The point is that we need not worry. Abbott could end this in a second. He has the technology. That is why he has been focusing on everything else instead, and probably will be, for a great length of time. But we can surely hope he will get around to the button after.

I'm trying to understand this eliminate all rapists in the contexts of Republican ideology.

So, if a rapists is now responsibile for the kid, they will no longer rape.

 

Republican ideology in a nutshell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing (And I'm just guessing here) that it's a jealousy thing. Some who can't have kids wish that they could, and therefore everyone should. And then there are those who had/have kids that they wish they didn't have because the kids are stupid/fat/ ugly/ expensive.... So everyone should suffer just like them....

 And then there's just the angry stupid vindictive I hate everyone people, who are anti abortion, anti-welfare, anti anything except what they want..... Twinkies, and 64oz. Mountain dew in a styrofoam cup.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, I disagree.  I'd be interested to see where the religious aspect of this comes into play.  IIRC from sunday school growing up, there was a lot of smiting and smoting and bashing the first born babies heads in against walls and all kinds of fun & games.  So curious where abortion comes in.

Speaking of which, I never understood the religious objection of vaccines either.  Maybe you guys could do a twofer explano......

Rocks

Thou shalt dash the babies of thine enemies which thou shalt righteously overcome against the rocks.

It's somewhere after the begetting and before the forbidding of eating lizards.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Rocks

Thou shalt dash the babies of thine enemies which thou shalt righteously overcome against the rocks.

It's somewhere after the begetting and before the forbidding of eating lizards.

- DSK

WHAT!!!!!????? What about licking toads? Does it say anything about that?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

WHAT!!!!!????? What about licking toads? Does it say anything about that?!

Do they have scales and creepeth upon the ground? I think that's the official King James proscription against lizards, but it doesn't say anything about licking anything.

Frankly, I think the guys who translated some of this shit were just fucking with us.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do they have scales and creepeth upon the ground? I think that's the official King James proscription against lizards, but it doesn't say anything about licking anything.

Frankly, I think the guys who translated some of this shit were just fucking with us.

- DSK

Shit..... OK that leaves Iguanas out of the equation, at least.... They mostly creep around in trees, and are very tasty. Frogs have no scales..... Chickens, on the other hand do have scales.... But they mostly strut, not creep around.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'm guessing (And I'm just guessing here) that it's a jealousy thing. Some who can't have kids wish that they could, and therefore everyone should. And then there are those who had/have kids that they wish they didn't have because the kids are stupid/fat/ ugly/ expensive.... So everyone should suffer just like them....

 And then there's just the angry stupid vindictive I hate everyone people, who are anti abortion, anti-welfare, anti anything except what they want..... Twinkies, and 64oz. Mountain dew in a styrofoam cup.

I've no doubt there's a jealousy thing going on.

It seems some folk get really upset that other folk are allowed to enjoy sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I've no doubt there's a jealousy thing going on.

It seems some folk get really upset that other folk are allowed to enjoy sex.

Never discount the fact that some people just think they have all the answers and everyone should just do it their way.

Asking people for a rational justification will come up empty.  They believe they have nothing to justify - because they are always right.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No, I disagree.  I'd be interested to see where the religious aspect of this comes into play.  IIRC from sunday school growing up, there was a lot of smiting and smoting and bashing the first born babies heads in against walls and all kinds of fun & games.  So curious where abortion comes in.

Speaking of which, I never understood the religious objection of vaccines either.  Maybe you guys could do a twofer explano......

The Faithful believe abortion is murder and Thou Shall not Kill. Not very complicated, but it is.

Now you are going to say, "But there is plenty of killing in the Bible, so they are hypocrites." And you'd be kind of right, but not really. When you read the Bible you have to understand that the Old TastyMint, where all the murder, mayhem, and baby smashing happens, is written to apply to the "in-group." And the in-group at the time were the Jews. Aka the Chosen People. The 'Ol Testy is a message from God to the Chosen peeps, and no one else. It doesn't apply to the rest of the world. So Joshua can lay waste to Jericho, killing every living damn thing, and that's all right because Thou Shall not Kill only applies to the in-group. The rest of the world (out-group) is fair game. Josh is doing God's work. The other place it's hunky-dory to kill is when an act violates The Law - all those rules and crap in Leviticus are great examples (homos, adultery, etc). 

The weird part comes when Good Christians try to apply their wacko rules to the rest of us. We, the Heathens, are not part of their group, we're the out-group, so their Bible rules should not apply to us. I always tell Christians their rules don't apply to me because I'm not a Christian and their minds seem to skip a beat in confusion.

As far as abortion goes, they are trying to apply their Thou Shall not Kill rule to the rest of us. They shouldn't give a shit, but they don't know how their own religion works.

Let us give praise to the Book-o-Exodus

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'll ask in a much nicer way.  V, why do you care that a woman gets an abortion?

I didn't say I cared, I merely asked if there should be time limits with regards to termination and if so how long. Does that mean I support women being forced to carry a rapists baby to term? No. Does that mean I support 6 weeks cut off date as presently in Texas? No.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bhyde said:

The Faithful believe abortion is murder and Thou Shall not Kill. Not very complicated, but it is.

When I hear that argument, I ask their thoughts on the death penalty.

That question usually elicits an awkward silence.

Principles are malleable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Rocks

Thou shalt dash the babies of thine enemies which thou shalt righteously overcome against the rocks.

It's somewhere after the begetting and before the forbidding of eating lizards.

- DSK

Yeah, sorry.  I was more interested in getting into the priest's daughter's pants than I was interested in studying the bible in minute detail.  So sue me.  Which interestingly, TX can now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, sorry.  I was more interested in getting into the priest's daughter's pants than I was interested in studying the bible in minute detail.  So sue me.  Which interestingly, TX can now.  

Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, sorry.  I was more interested in getting into the priest's daughter's pants than I was interested in studying the bible in minute detail.  So sue me.  Which interestingly, TX can now.  

Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.  

No, still a Priest.  Episcopalian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

  

And any of the rest of you folks who have a strong feeling against abortion, I'd be happy to understand your rational argument against.  TIA.

 

If @A guy in the Chesapeakewas around you could have had that discussion, he felt pretty strongly about it.  I know born and brought up vegetarians who would throw up if they came to know the cake they ate an hour ago contained egg so upbringing I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.  

If I remember correctly, Episcopalians call their clergy priests. They are allowed to marry and therefore can have daughters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart

Wow, nailed it in one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

When I hear that argument, I ask their thoughts on the death penalty.

That question usually elicits an awkward silence.

Principles are malleable.

Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:

Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for he is blah, blah blah...

and

Exodus 21:12 - “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”

and one of my favorites

Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Not a lot of grey area there, and there are probably a hundred places that talk about putting people to death in the Bible. The problem comes up when Jeebus gets involved and says crazy shit like "Turn the other cheek." You would think that JC would have had a basic understanding of the Old Testy, since it's the word of his dad, but apparently not. F'ing commie.

Edit to add: If Texas wanted to show strong Christian values, inline with the teachings of the Bible, they really should implement the death penalty for having an abortion. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:

Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for he is blah, blah blah...

and

Exodus 21:12 - “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”

and one of my favorites

Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Not a lot of grey area there, and there are probably a hundred places that talk about putting people to death in the Bible. The problem comes up when Jeebus gets involved and says crazy shit like "Turn the other cheek." You would think that JC would have had a basic understanding of the Old Testy, since it's the word of his dad, but apparently not. F'ing commie.

Edit to add: If Texas wanted to show strong Christian values, inline with the teachings of the Bible, they really should implement the death penalty for having an abortion. 

 

Yeah, I get that "cafeteria Christianity" stuff.  When pressed, they usually fold like a chair.  It's the blanket statement in the Commandment they state (Thou shalt not kill.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Yeah, I get that "cafeteria Christianity" stuff.  When pressed, they usually fold like a chair.  It's the blanket statement in the Commandment they state (Thou shalt not kill.)

That is part of the charade that includes "My body, my choice" in certain circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Justice Department May Have Found a Winning Argument Against the Texas Abortion Law
 

Quote

 

...

In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

How does the Texas abortion law injure federal sovereignty and interests? For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations. If you have been following the roiling national debate over qualified immunity, you have probably heard of Section 1983 since it is the law under which federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against abusive cops.

There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. What that means is that those parties impacted by the state law are entitled to seek legal recourse in federal court by filing Section 1983 lawsuits—except that the Texas law was specifically designed to block those parties from seeking that very recourse.

...

The Texas abortion law also runs afoul of a longstanding rule that says that states may not impose civil or criminal penalties on federal officials for carrying out their federal duties. That rule applies here because the Texas law, as the U.S. motion notes, "purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies." Likewise, the law "purports to impede the Department of Defense's implementation of its statutory obligation to provide such medical services [abortion] to service members."

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 5:09 PM, B.J. Porter said:

I think we should strongly consider embedding a picture of Amy Schumer in every reply to El Cucaracha. I think he has a thing for her.

https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https:%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2017%2F01%2Fschumer1-2000.jpg

Looks like Rick missed his chance to father her children.

Amy Schumer reveals she had uterus and appendix removed due to painful endometriosis

And, before anyone gets her/his panties in a twist, I am not making light of her condition.  That sounds horrible and most would probably keep it private.  Good on her for being open, in the chance it helps someone else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray for Uncooperative Doctors
 

Quote

 

...

San Antonio gynecologist Alan Braid, whose abortion clinics joined the other plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, could trigger such a case by revealing that he deliberately violated S.B. 8. "On the morning of Sept. 6," he writes in a Washington Post opinion piece published on Saturday, "I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state's new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care. I fully understood that there could be legal consequences—but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested."

...

When the Court declined to intervene in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson earlier this month, it cited the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" that the 5th Circuit later addressed. But once a private party sues Braid, the constitutional issues raised by S.B. 8 will be unavoidable. The only way to uphold the law will be to renounce Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Although most of the current justices seem to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they are prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.

Update: Oscar Stilley, who describes himself as a "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer," filed an S.B. 8 complaint against Braid on Monday in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio. Stilley, who is serving a 15-year federal sentence for tax fraud that he received in 2010, told The Washington Post his interest had been piqued by the $10,000 bounty and news coverage of Braid's stance. Stilley said he is not opposed to abortion but thought the law should be tested in court. "If the law is no good," he said, "why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it's garbage?"

 

And opportunistic inmates, of course. Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Turns out that "any person" means "any person."
 

Quote

 

...

All of the parties to these lawsuits, in other words, seem to think enforcement of S.B. 8 should be blocked. That situation dismays Chelsey Youman, Texas state director and national legislative adviser for Human Coalition, an anti-abortion group based in Frisco. "These out-of-state suits are not what the bill is intended for," Youman told The New York Times, which notes that her organization "said it had no plans to file a lawsuit" against Braid "or to encourage others to do so." Youman "speculated that the lawsuits were 'plants,' and she portrayed Dr. Braid's opinion essay as an attempt to bait a frivolous suit that would challenge the law's constitutionality in court."

Texas Right to Life also argues that the Stilley and Gomez lawsuits are improper. "Texas Right to Life is suspicious that Braid's op-ed is purely a legal and publicity ploy," it says. "The abortion industry's 16 previous efforts failed to stop this law from saving lives so far, and this may be another attempt….Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives. Both cases are self-serving legal stunts, abusing the cause of action created in the Texas Heartbeat Act for their own purposes."

Contrary to the implication, S.B. 8 does not require that plaintiffs be motivated by a desire to "save innocent human lives." Its description of potential plaintiffs—"any person"—could not be broader. Private civil lawsuits ordinarily seek to vindicate the plaintiff's rights and compensate him for an injury. By eliminating any such requirement and embracing legal tricks that conservatives have long condemned, S.B. 8 invited just the sort of gamesmanship that offends Human Coalition and Texas Right to Life.

...

 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 5:19 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Hah! Turns out that "any person" means "any person."
 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

I'm posting as usual and also sorry as usual.

People seem to object to certain media sources with clean fact check records, but never say why. It's a mystery. Similarly, my desire to spread factual TeamR cheerleading in spite of the objections is another mystery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

He thinks he's being cute and funny. 

But, he's just a pedantic ass who gets off on luring you down one of his rabbit holes.  Once you engage with him, he'll bury with links to his own posts and challenge you to defend yourself.  He must have one helluva spreadsheet to keep all of these "gotcha" opportunities straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snaggletooth said:

You cane usse thisse oune...............

2d87363eddb1d97cd32e0a5f594c0155.jpg

hoppe that helpes...........                                :)

Thacks Snags.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2021 at 8:31 PM, Burning Man said:

No, I disagree.  I'd be interested to see where the religious aspect of this comes into play.  IIRC from sunday school growing up, there was a lot of smiting and smoting and bashing the first born babies heads in against walls and all kinds of fun & games.  So curious where abortion comes in.

Speaking of which, I never understood the religious objection of vaccines either.  Maybe you guys could do a twofer explano......

The Catholics have always been against abortions, along with birth control.  Probably a combination of growing a base of believers (recall that Rome allowed women that had three living children to control their own property) and enforcing conformity to "God's Will".  Robert P. Jones (PRII.org) asserts that during the '70's Catholics joined forces with the conservative Evangelicals to get into politics with abortion being the price the Evangelicals paid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mike G said:

 

More detail

A US federal judge temporarily blocked a near-total ban on abortion in Texas, the toughest such law in the United States, following a challenge from President Joe Biden's administration after the US Supreme Court let it proceed.

Key points:

  • The Biden administration says the Texas law is unconstitutional and improperly interferes with the operations of the federal government
  • An attorney for Texas said the Justice Department's arguments were inflammatory and filled with hyperbole
  • US conservatives have long sought to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade precedent affirming a woman's right to seek an abortion

The action by US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues.

The case is part of a fierce legal battle over abortion access in the United States, with numerous states pursuing restrictions.

"This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Judge Pitman said in his ruling.

The ink was barely dry on Judge Pitman's order before Texas notified the court that it intended to appeal the ruling to the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for the next phase of the legal battle.

"Tonight's ruling is an important step forward toward restoring the constitutional rights of women across the state of Texas," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement late on Wednesday.

"The fight has only just begun, both in Texas and in many states across this country where women's rights are currently under attack," she added.

udge Pitman heard about three hours of arguments for the Justice Department's request.

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter called the law an "unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice" that must be struck down.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/us-judge-blocks-texas-abortion-law/100522408

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2021 at 7:53 PM, ShortForBob said:

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter called the law an "unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice" that must be struck down.

That's not quite true, as I noted in this thread last month. If you missed it, "vigilante justice" of this kind is hardly unprecedented and only sometimes bad.

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Texas Abortion Ruling—and How to Prevent it From Setting a Dangerous Precedent

Quote

 

...

To be clear, the problem here is not simply that Texas is using private law suits as an enforcement mechanism. Many laws—including many supported by the political left—rely heavily on enforcement by private litigants. That is true of numerous environmental regulations, consumer protection laws, and land-use restrictions, among others. California's notorious CEQA statute empowers NIMBYs (who in that state tend to be left-wing) to use private litigation to block new housing construction and other development. This exacerbates that state's serious housing shortage, and even leading to such absurd outcomes as a court ordering UC Berkeley to freeze enrollment.

Thus, condemnations of SB 8 for empowering private "vigilantes" are off-base, unless you also disapprove of the many other laws that  use private litigants as enforcers. I'm old enough to remember when conservatives denounced environmental and civil rights laws that utilized "private attorneys general," while many on the left defended them as essential regulatory tools. On both right and left, attitudes towards the use of private litigation as an enforcement mechanism often depend on whose ox is being gored.

The troubling aspect of SB 8 is not the use of private enforcement, as such, but the resort to it as a mechanism for evading judicial review.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

That's not quite true, as I noted in this thread last month. If you missed it, "vigilante justice" of this kind is hardly unprecedented and only sometimes bad.

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Texas Abortion Ruling—and How to Prevent it From Setting a Dangerous Precedent

 

Sounds kinda breezy, Dogballs. Kinda vague, too. Please cite your reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2021 at 7:53 PM, ShortForBob said:

The action by US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues.

The catch is, Despite the Injunction Against the Texas Abortion Ban, Clinics That Resume Their Usual Services Could Face 'Crippling Liability'
 

Quote

 

...

Among other things, it says defendants cannot rely on a court's determination that the statute is unconstitutional if that ruling is later overturned—even if that did not happen until after the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit. In other words, Texas clinics that perform prohibited abortions now cannot cite Pitman's ruling as a defense if the 5th Circuit overrules him, as seems likely.

...

For the time being, Pitman's injunction bars Texas courts from hearing lawsuits authorized by S.B. 8. But that will no longer be true if the 5th Circuit stays his injunction, as the state is asking it to do.

What happens then? If people are sued because of abortions performed before the 5th Circuit responds to the state's appeal, you might think, they could argue that they acted in good-faith reliance on a federal judge's conclusion that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional. But the law explicitly forecloses that possibility.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

In other words, the law is brilliantly evil.  

I wouldn't call brilliant and evil in the same sentence. Cunningly, disgustingly, maybe. Whoever came up with it should be consumed by giant crotch crabs forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rain Man said:

In other words, the law is brilliantly evil.  

I think so, but it has its fans who want to reinforce and expand on this plan. For example:

  

On 10/23/2021 at 11:01 PM, Raz'r said:

Only right that guns go away in liberal states. Might as well use the same technique. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 2:19 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

apology accepted, i guess

is this a great country, or what?

 

dogballs 7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

I think so, but it has its fans who want to reinforce and expand on this plan. For example:

  

 

Gotta play with the hand that’s dealt. 
 

seems to be how power works. Use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.

I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  

I see your faux equivalence and laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2021 at 8:48 AM, Raz'r said:

Gotta play with the hand that’s dealt. 

Yeah.

7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.

Acting like the game is over and authoritarians have won is one way to "play."

They're not following the script.

By the way, nutters were the only ones to interfere with the court at the merits stage, so particularly reprehensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

Quote

 

What if a state passed a law that says "everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen," Kavanaugh asked the Texas official. "Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?"

Stone conceded that his theory would shield that gun control law too. "My answers on whether or not federal court review is available does not turn on the nature of the right," he told Kavanaugh.

So "Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights," Kavanaugh emphasized, could all "be targeted by other states" using the Texas abortion law as a model. "And you also said that the amount of the penalty doesn't matter, a million dollars per sale," Kavanaugh added. "A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage, a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state, that's exempt from pre-enforcement review?"

"Is that a yes?" Kavanaugh pressed the Texas official.

"Yes, your honor," Stone replied.

Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor picked up on Kavanaugh's line of questioning. "A state dissatisfied with [District of Columbia v.] Heller says anyone who possesses a firearm anywhere is subject to litigation by any private citizen anywhere in the country and gets a million-dollar bounty," Sotomayor said to Stone. "So this is not limited to abortion." This is about any right "that a state is dissatisfied with."

"Your point," Sotomayor told Stone, "is that no matter how much a state intends to chill the exercise of a constitutional right…that does not give anyone a right to a federal forum when the state has deputized every citizen to act on its behalf."

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are correct. If allowed to stand, the structure of S.B. 8 will be copied by every state legislature that wants to restrict an unpopular right that the Supreme Court has recognized. That outcome should worry Americans of all political stripes.

 

Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.

I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

Yep, sorry, that's a legitimate and interesting argument & point.

I too would wonder what their answer would be. I'd LOVE to have them forced to answer it.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity. They really DON'T want a theocracy to run the show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

I didn't see where you asked me that for the first time, but OK.

Ask someone who opposes abortion would be my answer.

No would be a shorter answer.

You seem eager to throw abortion under the bus in the holy crusade to ban battlefield .22's and I find that regrettable. Don't give up on abortion rights just yet, even if it might mean some gungrabbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

yellow flag. False equivalence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:
9 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

yellow flag. False equivalence.

Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand the difference between people with standing being allowed to sue, and people with no standing being encourage to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 11/2/2021 at 6:29 PM, Raz'r said:

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity. They really DON'T want a theocracy to run the show.

That didn't take long.

On 12/11/2021 at 10:37 PM, Ishmael said:

California takes a page from Texas' book.

 

Seems your Governor agrees with your idea, Raz'r.

  

On 10/23/2021 at 11:01 PM, Raz'r said:

Abortion rights are pretty much already gone in many southern states. Only right that guns go away in liberal states. Might as well use the same technique. 

I continue to disagree, more so now that your statement of Thursday before last has fallen by the wayside.

Here Is Why a Texas Judge Concluded That the State's Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional
 

Quote

 

...

Needless to say, conservatives who applaud S.B. 8 because they oppose abortion won't necessarily like the results when people with different views use the same approach to promote their agendas. "We are a diverse and creative people, and it seems naïve to hope these procedures will be cabined voluntarily once they are upheld," Peeples writes. "A new and creative series of statutes could appear year after year, to be enforced by eager ideological claimants, who could bring suit in their home counties, where the judges would do their constitutional duty and enforce the law. Pandora's Box has already been opened a bit, and time will tell."

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites