The end of Roe. (no more question mark)

With SCOTUS picking up the Mississippi case yesterday, it looks like a sure thing that Roe is dead.

Normally, when every lower court gives the same decision, (in this case, declaring the Mississippi statute unconstitutional) SCOTUS won't touch the case, since there's nothing to really decide.

Dark days ahead.


If it is dead, Republican candidates will be losing a lot of seats in Congress next year.


I hope you're right.


 I was fretting about this for the past several years. I'm close to resignation. If it does get overturned I'm sure I will have some choice words for all of the women who rolled their eyes insisting that it would never be overturned and voted carelessly or didn't vote despite their insistence that they supported Roe. 


While I really hope Roe withstands this, it would be far better if abortion rights were codified by act of congress rather than some nebulous SCOTUS precedent.


yeah, but this SCOTUS would probably overturn it anyway.


Stephanie Ruhle  was one of the few commentators who had touched on the issue in the past. She highlighted it this morning with the new Texas heartbeat detection limitation, that is at about 6 weeks when many women are not even aware that they are pregnant. 

Rachel Maddow did extensive coverage a few years ago detailing the states that had limitations that were passed or bills waiting to be put into effect the second Roe was overturned.

I saw a headline announcing that this will be an issue in the midterm elections. Seems like too little too late.

If someone votes consistently to overturn Roe because their conscience dictates it, I understand that position more than the stance of those who just said, "not worried about it" and didn't vote or voted Republican with their head in the sand.


Roe may be effectively ended sooner than I thought.

If SCOTUS let's this TX law go through, every red state will be copying it pronto.


This, during a pandemic in which people who are ‘pro life’ refuse to wear masks, limit their movements, or keep a safe distance from others - and insist that vulnerable children must be educated at school premises. 

I have few polite words, sorry. 


joanne said:

This, during a pandemic in which people who are ‘pro life’ refuse to wear masks, limit their movements, or keep a safe distance from others - and insist that vulnerable children must be educated at school premises. 

I have few polite words, sorry. 

Yeah, they’re only “pro-life” until birth. Then you better be able to pay your own freight or **** off, to be less polite. 


This, from a state whose governor is trying to block mask-mandates on the basis that people should have the right to exercise dominion over their own bodies.


Rachel Maddow is covering this extensively tonight. 


The Texas law is just diabolical.


=================================================================

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/09/the-fugitive-uterus-act

It’s hard to convey just how revolting the Texas abortion ban the Supreme Court has allowed to go into effect is:

Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, and even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

That novel formulation has sent clinics scrambling.

Dr. Jessica Rubino, a doctor at Austin Women’s Health Center, a small, independent clinic in the state capital, said that at first, she wanted to defy what appeared to be an unconstitutional law. But she said she concluded that doing so would put her staff at risk.

“If this was a criminal ban, we’d know what this is and what we can and cannot do,” Dr. Rubino said. “But this ban has civil implications. It requires a lawyer to go to court. It requires lawyers’ fees. And then $10,000 if we don’t win. What happens if everybody is sued, not just me?”

For people wondering how this can possibly be consistent with current federal standing doctrine, well, it isn’t, but since enforcement is limited to Texas courts this is also largely a moot point:

The immediate question for the justices is not whether the Texas law is constitutional, but whether it may be challenged in federal court. The law’s defenders say that, given the way the law is structured, only Texas courts can rule on the matter and only in the context of suits against abortion providers for violating the law.

The statute is perfectly designed to allow Alito the ability to uphold a near-total abortion ban while claiming Roe is undisturbed, and the only costs are the immolation of the dignity and autonomy of Texas woman and turning the state into a warren of creepy misogynist narcs.


I think that the court is either about to overturn Roe, or that they'll strike this law down (the decision not to block it notwithstanding). Otherwise, they've just opened up an enormous loophole where states can launder unconstitutional laws through civil courts. That would pretty quickly destroy the entire concept of judicial review or, if the court decides to strike down some similarly-structured laws (say a hypothetical gun control law modeled after this Texas abortion law) and let others stand that would end any legitimacy for the court, also effectively ending judicial review.


PVW said:

I think that the court is either about to overturn Roe, or that they'll strike this law down (the decision not to block it notwithstanding). Otherwise, they've just opened up an enormous loophole where states can launder unconstitutional laws through civil courts. That would pretty quickly destroy the entire concept of judicial review or, if the court decides to strike down some similarly-structured laws (say a hypothetical gun control law modeled after this Texas abortion law) and let others stand that would end any legitimacy for the court, also effectively ending judicial review.

 well, the court just voted 5-4 to uphold the law.

this decision is less about Roe and more about SCOTUS's intent to dismantle the rule of law.


drummerboy said:

 well, the court just voted 5-4 to uphold the law.

 I don't think that wording is accurate. The vote was 5-4 not to grant an injunction. That's not the same as voting to uphold the law.


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

 well, the court just voted 5-4 to uphold the law.

 I don't think that wording is accurate. The vote was 5-4 not to grant an injunction. That's not the same as voting to uphold the law.

well, that may be because they decided they don't have standing to review it.

will have to see what the pundits say.


I don't quite understand how the Court can prohibit state courts from enforcing restrictive covenants that would be enforced in civil actions brought by non-governmental actors but can't prohibit this law from taking effect.  Actually, I can - the five who voted to deny the stay are a bunch of hypocritical, lying, activist judges who are all about what sort of power government may inflict upon the disenfranchised.


also, isn't a ban on abortions after 6 weeks simply unconstitutional vis a vis Roe?


drummerboy said:

also, isn't a ban on abortions after 6 weeks simply unconstitutional vis a vis Roe?

Yes, but the argument is that they haven't sued the correct people because they defendants (gov't officials) aren't authorized to enforce it and also one civilian who said that he had no intention of enforcing it.


My impression from the news coverage was that legal challenges are still ongoing? In any case, NY or NJ or CA should definitely put pressure on SCOTUS and pass a law allowing private citizens to sue any gun store that sells a firearm to anyone purchasing it for use outside of the context of a well-regulated state militia. I'd say there should be an exception for hunting, but the TX law made no exceptions.


Governor Braintrust speaks!



6 weeks is a lie. Women have only 2 weeks maximum as pregnancy weeks are counted from the last period, not the point of conception. So, assuming you have a regular period, and you miss your period 4 weeks after the last period you had and you have a positive pregnancy test, you now have only 2 weeks to find a clinic and book a termination in Texas.


ridski said:

6 weeks is a lie. Women have only 2 weeks maximum as pregnancy weeks are counted from the last period, not the point of conception. So, assuming you have a regular period, and you miss your period 4 weeks after the last period you had and you have a positive pregnancy test, you now have only 2 weeks to find a clinic and book a termination in Texas.

 Scientific American had a good piece on this subject a few days ago.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-absurd-pregnancy-math-behind-the-lsquo-six-week-rsquo-abortion-ban/


United States of America vs. The State of Texas

The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot
evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by
adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial
review. The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain
a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has
violated.

Texas doctor Alan Braid wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last Saturday saying he'd violated the law:

Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban


Today:

Lawsuits are filed against a Texas doctor who said he performed an abortion.

Now, what happens if the doctor simply refuses to respond to the suits? Doesn't the state have to come in to force him? And if they do, doesn't that negate the whole premise of the law that the state is not involved in enforcement?


This was an interesting turn of events.


Morganna said:

This was an interesting turn of events.

 So what does the court do next? I think there are implications both for Roe and for the basic concept of rule of law. Does it officially overturn Roe v Wade? Does it accept the legitimacy of for-profit-vigilantism? Can any constitutional right now be overturned by setting a bounty and delegating enforcement to private citizens, or only parts of the constitution Republicans don't like? Or does Roberts convince at least one other member of the court to step back from the precipice and smack this whole crazy thing down with prejudice?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals