Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

I am puzzled by this new law in Texas.

-Does it mean that if she becomes pregnant, a woman in the US ceases to have rights as a citizen of the USA?

-If a 40-year old woman believes she is pregnant, is it legal for her to drive from Texas to a Planned Parenthood Clinic in another state? Is it legal for her husband to drive her, can either or both be taken to court by a spotty 19-year old they have never met in search of $10,000?

-Does this law now give someone she doesn’t know, full control of the woman’s reproductive abilities and decision making, and is this not a violation of her rights as a citizen?

I am sure Taliban Trump would approve, but is this a step too far, even for his party of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies, or will this mark a turning point in the demolition of citizen’s rights and the Constitution, as Texas and similar states effectively secede from the Union- with the people’s support?

Or will Americans campaign to restore their rights? And succeed?

[filghy2]

Everything about this is bizarre. The Supreme Court majority seems to have green-lighted a mechanism for states to get around it's own precedents on constitutional rights with barely any attempt at justification.
https://www.vox.com/22653779/supreme...ckson-roe-wade

[broncofan]

-Does it mean that if she becomes pregnant, a woman in the US ceases to have rights as a citizen of the USA?

-If a 40-year old woman believes she is pregnant, is it legal for her to drive from Texas to a Planned Parenthood Clinic in another state? Is it legal for her husband to drive her, can either or both be taken to court by a spotty 19-year old they have never met in search of $10,000?

-Does this law now give someone she doesn’t know, full control of the woman’s reproductive abilities and decision making, and is this not a violation of her rights as a citizen?

This is a great point. If a normal criminal law were at issue one might say it would not have jurisdiction over acts that took place outside of their state. But since the law is enforced by private citizens they can file suit and a Texas Judge will decide whether their courts have jurisdiction.

I think your post brings up issues covered by the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution because such an application of the law would impede interstate travel (briefly covered in the second to last section here). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privil...unities_Clause

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hear these cases. While the law itself will deter abortion providers, someone will eventually sue and the Supreme Court will be able to hear the case because the defendant can appeal it to higher courts once it is enforced. As the vox article points out, simply violating the law so that you can challenge it threatens you with bankruptcy because of how many suits can be brought against you.

Another problem I have with the law is that by providing for civil lawsuits to enforce the law it evades the principle of standing for judicial cases. The standing requirements basically ensure that someone who is suing (in a civil action) is the actually harmed or aggrieved party in a case and that the issue can be redressed by a favorable decision. The standing requirement is a constitutional requirement that applies to state courts as well and is embodied in the "case or controversy" clause in the federal constitution. It is inconsistent with these principles to say that a random person is the aggrieved party when someone violates an anti-abortion law.

The issue as the vox article pointed out is that Texas came up with a novel way to frustrate challenge by not having the attorney general enforce the law. I would say the law would be overturned when it gets to the Supreme Court (on a number of grounds) but all bets are off with this court.

[Stavros]

This is a great point. If a normal criminal law were at issue one might say it would not have jurisdiction over acts that took place outside of their state. But since the law is enforced by private citizens they can file suit and a Texas Judge will decide whether their courts have jurisdiction.

I think your post brings up issues covered by the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution because such an application of the law would impede interstate travel (briefly covered in the second to last section here). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privil...unities_Clause

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually hear these cases. While the law itself will deter abortion providers, someone will eventually sue and the Supreme Court will be able to hear the case because the defendant can appeal it to higher courts once it is enforced. As the vox article points out, simply violating the law so that you can challenge it threatens you with bankruptcy because of how many suits can be brought against you.

Another problem I have with the law is that by providing for civil lawsuits to enforce the law it evades the principle of standing for judicial cases. The standing requirements basically ensure that someone who is suing (in a civil action) is the actually harmed or aggrieved party in a case and that the issue can be redressed by a favorable decision. The standing requirement is a constitutional requirement that applies to state courts as well and is embodied in the "case or controversy" clause in the federal constitution. It is inconsistent with these principles to say that a random person is the aggrieved party when someone violates an anti-abortion law.

The issue as the vox article pointed out is that Texas came up with a novel way to frustrate challenge by not having the attorney general enforce the law. I would say the law would be overturned when it gets to the Supreme Court (on a number of grounds) but all bets are off with this court.

I appreciate your well-informed reply and the fine tuning of aspects of US law I am not familiar with- but surely the lawyers in the Attorney General’s office in Texas are as familiar with Constitutional law, and key concepts such as the ‘principle of standing’- or are they plain ignorant, or deliberately challenging an aspect of law they want to remove to allow this kind of litigation to proceed, or just, as someone in London’s East End might say, ‘taking the piss’?

And where, in all this, is the discussion of the rights a woman has as a citizen of the USA?

[holzz]

never mind.

[broncofan]

I appreciate your well-informed reply and the fine tuning of aspects of US law I am not familiar with- but surely the lawyers in the Attorney General’s office in Texas are as familiar with Constitutional law, and key concepts such as the ‘principle of standing’- or are they plain ignorant, or deliberately challenging an aspect of law they want to remove to allow this kind of litigation to proceed, or just, as someone in London’s East End might say, ‘taking the piss’?

The Texas Legislature is familiar with the principle of standing because they used it to make review by the Supreme Court difficult. Pre-enforcement review is not available by filing a suit against the AG because regular citizens enforce the law and there can't be a challenge until the proper party is determined. Just as I don't believe ordinary citizens should have standing to sue women having abortions, the Supreme Court will not hear a case until the defendant can be ascertained. That was deliberate.

My view is that the legislature passed this law to make it difficult to challenge and that prior to challenge it has the effect of deterring a lot of abortions by making the potential punishment nearly unlimited. Maybe it gives the Court a chance to strike it down on other grounds without re-affirming Roe since the punishment scheme may be unconstitutional. I take it the Texas legislature is not that concerned about women's needs to get safe abortions which is very sad.

[filghy2]

Useful article on how unconservative (in the true sense) the current Supreme Court is. Conservatives used to complain about judicial activism; now they are all for it. https://www.vox.com/22662906/supreme...ution-roe-wade

[Stavros]

What is the 'Met Gala'? Every year I see photos of the well-known and to me, the unknown, mostly women dressed in designer frocks walking up some steps, or posing inside the lobby. What happens then? They go into a ballroom, stand around, gossip and drink white wine with canapés? Is that it? What is the news content?

As for AOC, I am amazed this appeared in the Telegraph (and so are the readers if the obnoxious comments are a guide, some referring to AOC as a 'Radical Left' even 'Revolutionary Left [!]) -but who is the woman in white standing next to her?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...trumpian-game/

[broncofan]

When I say that I sometimes see antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement I often feel like I'm saying something I shouldn't even though I'm certain of what I'm seeing. I don't think anything demonstrates it better than a greeting from a football club to Jews for Yom Kippur and nearly every comment being about Israel or a promise to unfollow the club. This is a kind of unrestrained hatred that has nothing to do with politics and belies people's insistence that they see a separation between support of Israel and Jewishness. Is there room for Jews in societies where this is the stock response to any Jewish holiday, to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or to any mention of Jewishness?

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1438058647519744002

[broncofan]

When I say that I sometimes see antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement I often feel like I'm saying something I shouldn't even though I'm certain of what I'm seeing. I don't think anything demonstrates it better than a greeting from a football club to Jews for Yom Kippur and nearly every comment being about Israel or a promise to unfollow the club. This is a kind of unrestrained hatred that has nothing to do with politics and belies people's insistence that they see a separation between support of Israel and Jewishness. Is there room for Jews in societies where this is the stock response to any Jewish holiday, to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or to any mention of Jewishness?

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1438058647519744002

In order to see replies you have to hit "show more replies" otherwise it just takes you to Liverpool's other tweets.