Texas' restrictive abortion law takes effect after SCOTUS deadline to stop it passes.

[natepro]

A Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy went into effect Wednesday, as a midnight deadline for the Supreme Court to stop it came and went without action.

The court could still grant a request from abortion providers to halt the law, one of the nation’s most restrictive. But both the statute’s proponents and opponents had expected word from the high court before the statute went into effect on Sept. 1

The law effectively eliminates the guarantee in Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that women have a right to end their pregnancies before viability, abortion providers said, and that states may not impose undue burdens on that decision.

The Texas law “unquestionably contravenes this Court’s precedent … with abortions after six weeks banned throughout Texas — something that has never been allowed to occur in any other state of the nation in the decades since Roe,” said a brief filed by abortion providers and their allies.

Those precedents have been cited by federal judges around the country to halt six-week bans in other states before they took effect. The lawsuits that stopped those laws targeted government officials who would enforce the bans.

But the Texas law was designed to make it more difficult for abortion rights advocates to win such pre-enforcement injunctions. The statute empowers individuals, instead of state government officials, to bring legal action against those who help women seeking a prohibited abortion.

Lawyers for abortion providers told the Supreme Court that the statute, known as S.B. 8, would “immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access” in Texas and probably force more clinics to close. The law is unconstitutional, they say, because it conflicts with the court precedents that prevent states from banning abortion before a fetus would be viable outside the womb, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

About 85 to 90 percent of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy — many women don’t realize they are pregnant that soon — meaning this law would prohibit nearly all abortions in the state.

“Patients will have to travel out of state — in the middle of a pandemic — to receive constitutionally guaranteed health care. And many will not have the means to do so,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), said in a statement. “It’s cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful.”

In response Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to act against the law at this point, and that any legal challenges would have to wait until someone actually brought a civil action against an abortion provider or someone who aids the woman.

“This Court cannot expunge the law itself. Rather, it can enjoin only enforcement of the law,” he wrote in his brief to the court. But in the Texas case, he noted, government officials “explicitly do not enforce the law.”

The abortion providers, Paxton wrote, “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone.”

Republican-led legislatures in other states have passed similar six-week measures they refer to as “heartbeat bills,” because they say that is when a doctor can first detect a fetal heartbeat — a description doctors opposed to the legislation say is medically inaccurate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dce_story.html

This is not good for the future of abortion rights in this country. Given that most people don't even know they're pregnant until after 6 weeks, it's effectively a ban without having the courage to call it such.

[Scoots]

It can still be overturned later. I believe it's waiting on the SCOTUS decision on Mississippi.

[dbroncos78087]

Imagine being pro-choice and expecting to be taken seriously after voting for Trump over Clinton.

[Scoots]

Imagine being pro-life and expecting to be taken seriously after voting for Trump over Clinton.

I don't understand your point. Trump over Clinton seems like a reasonable position for a pro-life person.

[dbroncos78087]

I don't understand your point. Trump over Clinton seems like a reasonable position for a pro-life person.

Typo, it's been corrected.

[statquo]

Imagine being pro-choice and expecting to be taken seriously after voting for Trump over Clinton.

Imagine being pro-choice and expecting to be taken seriously after voting third party over Clinton. Cost 3 SC seats. Sad!

[catman]

And what is your point? Clinton was a lousy candidate that ran a horrible campaign.

[dbroncos78087]

And what is your point? Clinton was a lousy candidate that ran a horrible campaign.

Not telling women to **** off with regard to their own body is enough.

[natepro]

And what is your point? Clinton was a lousy candidate that ran a horrible campaign.

She was so terrible that she received more votes.

[ciaban2.0]

Imagine being pro-choice and expecting to be taken seriously after voting third party over Clinton. Cost 3 SC seats. Sad!

I voted 3rd party in a red state, my sister voted 3rd party in a blue state, it doesn't matter...

[ciaban2.0]

She was so terrible that she received more votes.

She was so great she didn't bother campaigning in swing states.

[PackerBum9786]

so much for "my body my choice" ohhhhh that only matters when people don't want to wear masks to stop the spread of a virus

[natepro]

She was so great she didn't bother campaigning in swing states.

You enjoy saying things that are easily shown false, don't you? It's the only possible explanation.

Here she is in Michigan.

And here's a rally in Pittsburgh.

And another in Pittsburgh.

And one in Scranton.

And then there's the issue that there's no evidence that campaigning more in those states would've changed the election.

Fun meme though.

[dbroncos78087]

so much for "my body my choice" ohhhhh that only matters when people don't want to wear masks to stop the spread of a virus

If you’re a woman, it’s more like “your body, we’re gonna authorize a $10,000 bounty to take away your choice”. They literally let other people enforce the law against women.

[Jack the Ripper]

6 months is more than enough to know whether you were raped or not, unless we've stopped pretending that abortions aren't primarily used as birth control for irresponsible women.