SCOTUS & the Texas abortion law

[Starkiller]

3 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

I'd guess that 2 week window is huge 

Seems like weeks 1-4 would be a pretty tiny percentage. Who is going to know that early?

[BudsOilers]

4 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

I'd guess that 2 week window is huge 

 

Perhaps.  Two months is a long time to go without a period and not be worried if you are sexually active woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

 

5 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Seems like weeks 1-4 would be a pretty tiny percentage. Who is going to know that early?

 

LOL at you chiming in about any discussions regarding sexual activity. 

[OILERMAN]

1 minute ago, BudsOilers said:

 

Perhaps.  Two months is a long time to go without a period and not be worried if you are sexually active woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

 

Yea, I think around 6 weeks a woman would start to worry and by 8 weeks they'd think they were pregnant. Hence the 2 weeks in between being a key time period. 

 

I don't think it was an accident they made the new law 6 weeks, I'm sure the intent was to make it before a woman would realize she was preg. 

[BudsOilers]

Just now, OILERMAN said:

 

Yea, I think around 6 weeks a woman would start to worry and by 8 weeks they'd think they were pregnant. Hence the 2 weeks in between being a key time period. 

 

I don't think it was an accident they made the new law 6 weeks, I'm sure the intent was to make it before a woman would realize she was preg. 

 

I suspect you are right.  I do think it's hilarious that the data available to the public intentionally makes it speculative.

[Come on Titans]

TX GOP is truly a bunch of dumbass shitbags....

 

The 'fetal heartbeat' that defines Texas' new abortion laws doesn't exist, say doctors

A six-week-old fetus doesn't have a cardiovascular system.  

At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist...

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fetal-heartbeat-defines-texas-abortion-121000668.html

[oldschool]

22 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Yea, I think around 6 weeks a woman would start to worry and by 8 weeks they'd think they were pregnant. Hence the 2 weeks in between being a key time period. 

 

I don't think it was an accident they made the new law 6 weeks, I'm sure the intent was to make it before a woman would realize she was preg. 

 

6 weeks is generally accepted as the time frame the little blob attached to the uterus wall has a heartbeat. I remember seeing it via ultrasound the first time and it was just a single vein beating, it doesn't resemble a human let alone a fetus at that point. It's the holy grail of anti abortion advocates as they know they have no shot at using the standard of life begins at conception when it comes to enacting law.

[Come on Titans]

 

[BudsOilers]

Good read on here about the SCOTUS ruling and the actual lawsuit they had to look at.....https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490

 

Quote

Let’s consider this in the context of the Texas law. The Texas law does not criminalize abortion. It allows a private person to sue an abortion provider and recover civil damages. So when abortion providers sued to stop the law from going into effect, the question was always whom they were going to bring the lawsuit against. The Texas attorney general and governor — the people who normally get sued in state abortion restriction cases — weren’t parties to any of these future lawsuits, so they couldn’t be sued in this case. In the end, the abortion providers decided to sue a state judge, arguing that he was a state actor that could be enjoined from presiding over the civil cases and using the power of the state to enforce the $10,000 award.

 

Whether a federal court can enjoin a state judge from overseeing a state civil trial based on state law is a complicated legal question. States themselves are immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, but in 1908 the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could get an injunction against an enforcing state officer when that person was violating the U.S. Constitution. The question for the Supreme Court was: Are state judges the enforcers of the Texas law?

 

This legal ambiguity was precisely the point, by the way. After decades of passing myriad state abortion restrictions only to have them enjoined by federal courts and never go into effect, the anti-abortion movement’s legal wing came up with this idea as a way to get around the problem. By their way of thinking, if there were no one to enjoin, then they could get past that first hurdle — further than any so-called heartbeat bill had ever made it.

 

In the end, in an unsigned opinion, a majority of justices held that “federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves” and did not enjoin the state judge. But they also said that the decision was emphatically “not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

 

[abenjami]

1 hour ago, BudsOilers said:

Good read on here about the SCOTUS ruling and the actual lawsuit they had to look at.....https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490

 

 

 

Most people don't understand the evidence code and how that works.  Judges decide cases based upon admissible evidence, not hypothetical scenarios that haven't occurred yet.  With some exceptions, the judicial system is reactive, not proactive.

 

There was no evidence presented to carry the burden of proof that particular judge, who was the only person sued.  In fact, as far as I can tell from reading the opinion, that judge actually filed an affidavit stating he had no present intention to enforce the law.

[Little Earl]

21 hours ago, Starkiller said:

apparently the left doesn’t believe in personal responsibility 

[Little Earl]

7 hours ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

Would it be reasonable to call the texas legislature the texas taliban? Republicans tell us they are for smaller government and yet they pass more laws to control people than congress passes laws. How many red states are already lined up to follow texas' abortion law? How many red states have passed voter restriction laws?

Tell us again how the gop is for freedom and less government regulation, @Little Earl

you need to try better.  It is illegal to murder someone after birth, so how hard is it to understand why so many people are against murder before birth?

[OILERMAN]

6 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Most people don't understand the evidence code and how that works.  Judges decide cases based upon admissible evidence, not hypothetical scenarios that haven't occurred yet.  With some exceptions, the judicial system is reactive, not proactive.

 

There was no evidence presented to carry the burden of proof that particular judge, who was the only person sued.  In fact, as far as I can tell from reading the opinion, that judge actually filed an affidavit stating he had no present intention to enforce the law.

 

What's the difference in the court not making a judgement vs putting a "stay" on the law? If that's how you would word it?

[BudsOilers]

5 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Most people don't understand the evidence code and how that works.  Judges decide cases based upon admissible evidence, not hypothetical scenarios that haven't occurred yet.  With some exceptions, the judicial system is reactive, not proactive.

 

There was no evidence presented to carry the burden of proof that particular judge, who was the only person sued.  In fact, as far as I can tell from reading the opinion, that judge actually filed an affidavit stating he had no present intention to enforce the law.

 

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WWH-v.-Jackson-Complaint.pdf

 

They actually sued a bevy of people in this lawsuit but the principle at play here remains the same.  They sued all of the district court judges, county clerks, etc.

[abenjami]

22 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

What's the difference in the court not making a judgement vs putting a "stay" on the law? If that's how you would word it?

A simplistic explanation would be something like this. 

 

A judgment would mean the law can or cannot be enforced period.  That's the end game either way. 

 

A stay would mean it temporarily can't be enforced until we give our judgment at a later date. 

[abenjami]

27 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WWH-v.-Jackson-Complaint.pdf

 

They actually sued a bevy of people in this lawsuit but the principle at play here remains the same.  They sued all of the district court judges, county clerks, etc.

I didn't see that, thanks. I thought it was odd. 

 

As far as I can tell there isn't even a majority opinion published.