Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Joe knows, Nov 30, 2021.
Punishing women for leaving the state?Clinical paranoia.
That’s what the Supreme Court has allowed Texas to do. If a woman leaves the state to get an abortion or somebody assists her, they can be sued.
Well what about your position did I get wrong?
Well, anybody can sue anybody for anything. So what? They'll lose.
Even within Texas, the woman cannot be prosecuted OR sued:
(b) This subchapter may not be construed to:
(1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;
Nor can the provider be successfully sued in New Mexico or any other state. The reasons are complicated, but that's just not going to happen.
I'm happy to acknowledge -- if not respect-- your sources saying the contrary, other than the Huffington Post or some hysteric appearing on the Joy Reid show.
Anyway it's moot. The law will probably not be upheld in my opinion.
The human race has come a long way
Isn't that why they want to overturn Roe V Wade? On a side note......there would be at least twice as many Black Americans alive in this nation had it not been for Roe V Wade. So much for black lives matters.
You know, that really does make sense Lil Mike. Slavery was the exact same way. Left up to the States to decide. Lincoln valued our Union enough to leave it that way. That is until the situation warranted it's complete abolishment! I do believe Kalifornia would vote in a Communist Government in a heartbeat if the Constitution didn't prohibit!
The Texas law allows any private citizen to sue anyone (in Texas or elsewhere) who “aids or abets” anyone in getting an abortion in Texas after that period or anyone who intends to aid or abet that process.
You think this law is acceptable? The Supreme Court had the option of knocking it down immediately, but did not do so. What else are you willing to defend?
I think it's a stupid law if that's what you're asking, but it's obviously not intended to create a private cause of action enforceable in New York State. Whether it's unconstitutional or not is up to the Supreme Court, not you and I or all the celebrities like Stephen Colbert posing as constitutional law experts.
I don't know what they intended as regards a man who drives his pregnant girlfriend from El Paso. TX to Santa FE, NM for an abortion and then (he) returns to El Paso and gets sued in El Paso. No, I would not approve of a lawsuit against him or the law that establishes the right to sue on that basis, if that's even what the legislature contemplated, this even if he assists her in having an abortion within Texas. (All this assumes we are talking pre-viability. I have no sympathy for post viability abortionists).
But the Supreme Court is not supposed to be going around like an avenging angel swatting down -- without oral argument!! -- whatever laws offend Justice Sotomayor's sensibility as a Wise Latina.
They haven't finally ruled on the Texas law,, and I'll reserve comment on their ruling once I hear it. But you can bet that no one on the Supreme Court is going to vote to overrule Roe because he hates women. They are all of them married, some with daughters. That's just a juvenile opinion. We can't judge the legitimacy of laws based on our opinions.
As Justice Scalia said, the People have every right to amend the constitution and make it say what they want it to say. The Supreme Court does not have the right to say what they (and the lunatics screaming outside the courthouse) think it should say. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd say it's gone a long way -- down -- but whatever.
You mean boys can be boys or girls doesn't look like an advancement to you? Why, even in my early years that wasn't possible. Amazing scientific advances.
Apparently, as the law is written, if you were the man who drove your Texas girlfriend to and from El Paso to have an abortion, yes, you could be sued in Texas. The Supreme Court could’ve put a hold on this law immediately but they didn’t do that. They intervened and stopped other laws when it was in their interest, and without oral arguments, so this is a matter of personal preference for them. The conservative justices are hostile to Roe and if you say anything other than that, you’re in denial. They were put on the bench because of their hostility to Roe. Groups on both sides, pro-choice groups and pro-life groups, are planning ahead as if we’re going to live in a Post Roe reality. Both sides know the reality of what’s a stake. Kavanaugh even said abortion should be left to the states. That’s pretty clear.
Speaking of people making juvenile arguments, I am tired of men saying that it’s impossible for a man to be hostile to women because they’re married to a woman and they have daughters. I grew up seeing domestic violence. My father is an alcoholic. He calls my mother a bitch constantly. My father is married to a woman and has daughters. Those two facts do not prove that a man is incapable of violence towards women, and there are millions of women and young girls in America who know that and live in the same reality.
Pointing out that there are many women in the presence of a man and that makes him incapable of abusing women is kind of horrifying. Governor Cuomo had a lot of women around him, and they weren’t there because he cared about advancing women in the workplace. He was abusing them. It wasn’t a symbol of women’s advancement.
I'm sincerely sorry about your father and sympathise with your mother. I had a sadistic and masochistic father myself. I'm 69 now and I think about the damage he did every day and wish I had either reported him to the police or ... taken the law into my hands. I am sure my very last thought will be of him. Unfortunately.
Now, I think you know I did not say that a man having a wife or daughter is proof that he does not hate or abuse women. But it is relevant to the charge that they hate women or personally want them enslaved.
"They intervened and stopped other laws when it was in their interest, and without oral arguments, so this is a matter of personal preference for them."
Sorry, that's just a reckless charge. See more below.
"The conservative justices are hostile to Roe and if you say anything other than that, you’re in denial."
I will admit that they are conservative, which is their right, and, as such, they don't favor arrogating to themselves the power to read rights into the constitution that just are not there. (Why would you, why would anyone, want 9 unelected lawyers in black robes inventing rights and powers? Who gave them such power? What else.might they imagine is in the Constitution?)
Roe is therefore on thin ice, yes, but only because it's a preposterous decision (as a matter of Constitutional interpretation). It is not due to hostility to reproductive rights or a war in women or some such nonsense. Conversely, if a liberal justice votes to overturn a murderer's criminal conviction, it doesn't mean he likes murder.
You know who voted to overturn the conviction of the flag burner? Justice Antonin Scalia. He hated the guy, but he had integrity and saw flag burning as protected speech under the First Amendment. The justices have integrity, the conservatives anyway. It was Trump appointee Gorsuch who wrote the opinion protecting sexual orientation (homosexuality, really) under federal law. He's no gay rights activist.
Pointing out that a man has a wife and daughters is not at all relevant to the charge that he hates women or can’t possibly abuse women. I would personally be horrified if somebody used me and my own mother as an example to say that my father is not capable of abuse.
Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh have both been accused of improper sexual behavior towards women. Trump helped Kavanaugh get on the court and Trump has also had multiple allegations against him. The Trump administration also failed to properly investigate Kavanaugh. The fact that two men, Cavanaugh and Thomas, could be essential in removing a woman’s right to choose does symbolize what these men think of women and their bodies. A pro-life man should not feel sexually entitled to grab women and then tell them that they have no right to end a pregnancy that they don’t want, especially if that pregnancy is a result of rape or abuse.
I made no reckless charge. The conservatives on the Supreme Court use the shadow docket inconsistently without hearing oral arguments first. The Texas abortion law was allowed to stand. But when Christian groups alleged discrimination in Covid regulations, they granted emergency injunctions.
You have already logically made the argument that you support Roe being overturned because you don’t consider abortion a constitutional right. If you want Roe overturned, why are you being coy about it? Just be honest.
it doesn’t matter if you think abortion is constitutionally protected or not. Nothing stop the conservative majority from decimating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Scalise argued it was the perpetration of racial entitlement for blacks and minorities. I think Kennedy agreed that we have advanced since 1965 and so the Voting Rights Act was essentially unnecessary.
How many Americans are comfortable with supreme court justices saying the continued recognition of their rights is unnecessary because we just don’t need our rights to be federally protected anymore?
It would be nice if a women’s right to have a safe abortion would be federally protected, because if Roe is overturned a lot of women are going to get hurt and some will probably die.
Okay, I tried to have a sincere and good faith exchange with you. It didn't work. Lesson learned!
I tried too. I thought we were having fun. I can only assume that you’re reading a ton of stuff into my post that I’m not actually saying and making a ton of judgments.
All of it.
Motherhood can be and usually is a blessed and beautiful status for all concerned. I see no reason to force it on people who don't want it, Why do you?
I suppose that's why you hate Democracy so. The police will work for those abundant poor, not the rarefied rich.
No, out and crying means just that. I've never yet heard of a mother who insisted on a newborn child being aborted and confidently expect I never will. I see it as their right nonetheless but only for the first few seconds.
You can't kill people who are outside of their mothers for the same reason I can't kill you and you me. People who are inside of another person's body aren't people they're growths.
Abortion has nothing to do with the so-called "unborn" That's deflection and covering and everybody knows it, Abortion is to punish a woman for having SEX and tempting an innocent man to risk his IMMORTAL SOUL. (women, as vessels of the devil don't really have one)
it's babies 15 weeks old ffs. and rape accounts for 1 percent of all abortions. and women consent to partake in the one act that they know could get them pregnant.
you need another arguement.
I don't think the constitution prohibits California or any State from voting in a Communist government.
Anyway I would prefer abortion return to the states and remove it from the national discourse. There is zero reason on why it should be a federal issue and sending it back to the States where it belongs would help limit the insanity.
"ZERO" hmmm -- why would it not be - in any way - a Federal Issue ?
Separate names with a comma.