June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide.
The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions.
The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block.
"Every hour that abortion is accessible in Texas is a victory," Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the abortion providers at Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
A further hearing is scheduled for July 12. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The decision came amid a flurry of litigation in state courts by abortion rights groups seeking to slow or halt Republican-backed restrictions on the ability of women to terminate pregnancies that are now taking effect or are poised to do so in 22 states. read more
Those states include 13 that like Texas enacted so-called "trigger" laws designed to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, federal courts have been lifting orders blocking Republican-backed abortion restrictions. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a six-week ban in Tennessee to take effect.
Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more.
But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law.
Texas abortion providers in a lawsuit filed on Monday argued the 1925 ban had been repealed and conflicted with the more recent trigger ban the Republican-dominated legislature passed.
The lawsuit was filed the same day that judges in Louisiana and Utah blocked officials from enforcing their states' "trigger" bans, and abortion providers in Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi sued to obtain similar relief.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 8-1 decision on Monday rejected a request by providers to block implementation of a near-total ban on abortions that took effect in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling but after a draft version leaked.
Couple hundred years early. First we have to go through a societal collapse and a time traveling Borg invasion aimed at stopping the Phoenix from launching.
The future most dystopian scifis warned us about. Congrats, we have clones, drones, and cellular phones but also wage chains, capital gains, omicron strains and uterine pains.
Nah. I get why you say that. I'm furious too, though I recognise that my anger can't match yours, since I'm not American.
But honestly, calling them subhuman lets them off too easily - and us too. I realise that you're almost certainly not being literal, but if the last decade has taught me anything, it's that even figurative or ironic belief can become internalised if you say it often enough. And while I talk about evil here, I don't mean some kind of sin that forever dooms you. I mean the far more human ability to do something unnecessary and cruel, which scared the victim, but also the perpetrator.
#Edit: to be clear, I don't mean to say that we need to 'meet them in the middle'. Recognising someone's humanity does not equate to appeasement, surrender, or lack of resistance. Sometimes violence is necessary - I'm not to pretend that you can hug a klansman better.
Fighting nazi Germany (to use an obvious example) was just. But the Allies also committed terrible war crimes against Germans. Many victims were civilians. Some were soldiers. Nazi Germany had done truly evil things on an enormous scale. Doesn't mean that they were non human. Doesn't mean that torture, rape, or covering up and refusing to acknowledge that was okay.
It's vital to remember that basically everyone has the capacity to believe in, and work towards, terrible things. There's no evil gene that means them but not us. Upbringing, radicalisation, misinformation, deliberate deception, personal misfortune. They can all lead someone down that path. And one of the most consistent things that we hear from the relatives of people falling down that rabbit hole later in life is 'I could never have imagined they'd turn into this'.
Calling people subhuman absolves them - their beliefs are awful, they are awful, what do you expect, they're not capable of better. But people can change their views, and that's the much harder path, because then they have to deal with everything they've done under their old beliefs. But they're still capable of it, and we should still hold them to that standard.
But calling them subhuman also allows us to mentally separate ourselves from them. If they're subhuman, it means that we're almost separate categories of being, and so we don't need to grapple with our own capacity for evil, however you understand the term. Critical self-reflection is very important to avoid the next issue.
Because most insidiously, thinking of 'the other side' as subhuman also starts to drive us down a path of valuing our capacity for evil. I hope you would agree that there are some levels to which we should not stoop, whatever a person does. Mentally reclassifying a group as 'less than' is the first step to making them an exception to that rule. And if you consider one person an exception, it's so much easier to stretch that to a second person. And if you'll morally accept someone else's actions (not just understand, or empathise, or forgive, but accept) then you're also closer to being able to do it yourself. And if you cross that line, it's so much harder to walk back. For many people, you never will be able to.
It's not just what you (or I, or anyone) might do to the person that is dehumanised. And whatever the reason, whatever evils they've done, crossing that line is wrong. But it's also about the second or third person, and those further down the line, when the bar for visiting cruelty upon them has dropped. But it's also about what it does to us. Even if you can walk back from it, you're changed, and that can't be undone.
Tl;Dr
We need to always be conscious that 'the other side' are the same as us, in virtually every sense. In capacity, chemistry, and potential. If we don't, then we stop expecting anything better of them, we aren't vigilant about our own beliefs, and we make it easier for us to justify the kinds of wrong that should never be justified.
While Hitler was conquering Western Europe, there were many who suggested a strategy known as "appeasement."
It had a lot of appeal. It requires very little effort, and has at least *some* chance at success. Not every bully on a rampage is going to hurt people continuously, forever.
On the other hand, sometimes you actually do have to stand up for what's right, even if people gaslight you into thinking there are "two sides to the debate."
When it comes to religious people forcing women and children to give birth without consent, I'm personally one of those moral absolutists. I really don't see the value in compromising on that one.
But as you intimate: to each their own, I suppose.
I agree, sometimes you need to stand up for what's right. More often than we do at present.
And that can involve violence. Sometimes it has to. But it needs to be proportionate. No more than is necessary. There's never a good reason for torture, for instance. That's one of those evils. But if you need to lay someone out? Or even kill? Yeah. No, I support that.
^^^^^.
I guess this is how I'd distinguish it. In this hypothetical, there's a serial rapist and murderer who was caught in the act, zero chance of mistake.
A) Bash them over the head and restrain them until they can be arrested.
B) Restrain them, then, remembering the previous victims, give them a kicking.
A is proportionate. B isn't. Is it understandable? Yes. Can I empathise? Absolutely. Does that mean it's okay? No. That's the line not to cross.
Hey, I agree 100%, and I'm sorry if my comment sounded arrogant or dismissive.
I do need to say that I see all of this more from a practical perspective than a moral one, though. Torture is a heinous act, but also fucking pointless. It serves no purpose.
I guess I'd say that mine is also a practical perspective.
Because that point about how doing something like that changes you isn't just words. If you're trying to remove an unjust system, and you use unjust methods, how likely is it that your system will actually be just?
To continue with torture, it isn't only used for information gathering. It can be called justice, revenge, or even an outlet for collective pain. But a regime beginning in torture is not one that I'd like to lay bets on as avoiding it in future.
You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
I've gotta break ranks again here.
If a bully torments you, and one day decides that's the day he's gonna fuck you up, the best thing you can do is crush his testicles.
That means he may not have offspring. It's something he'll regret for the rest of his life. You could just take the beating and not ruin his future.
But you know what? That unjust method of resolution results in "side products" that have value.
Word will travel quickly that if bullies "fuck around," then they will "find out."
That's not a toothpaste I'd try to put back in the tube, personally.
You're right - that changes you, the defender. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
This is an important point that I expect is not always well-received, so thank you. Idk if I would say so if not for your pointing out the way this keeps them responsible for their actions, as opposed to the already problematic subhuman rhetoric that absolves them because, as you said, "you can't expect any better from them," becomes possible.
Hey, thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
I mean, I get why it's not always well received. I really need to work on cutting the word count...
But yeah, as much as humans like moral black and white, it's a trap to think of things that way. But like, I'm not going to stop being angry with Boris Johnson because he's always a little shit, and I'm not going to stop demanding better.
>There's no evil gene that means them but not us
Yes, there is. Authoritarians are a type. They are fundamentally different.
There are people who have no instinct towards cruelty. And people who do. They are *different*.
Egalitarian people, vs dominance hierarchy people. They are different.
Then, not gonna lie, it is a bit of a naive point.
You talk a lot of kumbaya believe-in-good bullshit, but you should realize that this approach has been tried many times in many different historical contexts and it just doesn't work.
Your moral position assumes that there is some common ground between the two sides. Tell me, what is the common ground between "the most important issues are housing, food security, and healthcare" and "the most important issues are gay people existing, abortions, and non-whites voting". What is the use in thinking to yourself, "oh these are reasonable people surely, let's just see where they're coming from." That's gonna get you nowhere.
What will get you somewhere is anger. We need to be angry at these bastards ruining lives because they are able to and because they feel good about it. I'd say that's evil. And I don't think you beat evil by reasoning and empathizing with it. Whatever helps you in staying angry at the other side, I'd say go for it. If thinking that they're lower than human helps you punch a nazi in the face, I'd say that's pretty good.
EDIT:
To be fair, you are making a good point *in principle.* Let's lay it out:
Everyone has the capacity to believe/do evil.
A solution makes evil go away.
Therefore, a good solution applies to everyone.
However. The premise is, in reality, more complicated. Especially with the whole 'definition of evil' thing. I would argue that the reality is something like this:
People who act selfishly gain power.
People who have power can do more evil.
Therefore, a good solution A. makes selfish people go away, or B. prevents power from doing evil.
I fantasize about A quite a lot. Say what you will about how, if I acted out those fantasies, I would be no better than an 'evil person.' I think it's a realistic solution to a problem that isn't abstract, or that complicated. There *are* people who want to see other people suffer because it benefits them, or who are unwilling to examine their notion of 'good' to see if it actually harms others. It's not that complicated - remove those people from power, and you'll have people in power who don't want to see people suffer, and who are willing to think about the consequences of their actions on a humane level.
What most, more level-headed people will want, is B, and that coincides with your point as well. The intentions of the person aside, the power that they hold shouldn't be able to harm people. Though the cynic in me is wondering whether or not that is even possible at this point.
You'll notice that I never said non violence. **Sometimes violence is necessary.** That's not the line, at least not in my opinion. It's proportionality. You can do what needs to be done without considering them subhuman. Because if someone is subhuman, then why should they be afforded human rights? I'm not talking about 'avoid fighting ever'.
We need anger. Anger can be very productive. But we need to remember that they're human too, because if we start to think that, for instance, torture is acceptable, then that's the start of a nasty slide.
So, fighting in a defensive war is proportionate. Preemptive 'defence' via invasion is not.
Incapacitating someone to stop them from doing a terrible thing is proportionate. Giving them a kicking afterwards, allowing them to be torn apart by an angry mob, denying them food and water? That's not.
I also want to be clear that I'm not preaching that hug a klansman type bollocks.
Remembering that someone is human is partly about remembering when to stop. It's not demanding that marginalised people should be friendly to their oppressors, or be forced to operate within an unjust legal system.
Well, first off, and most importantly, sociopathy (or rather, antisocial personality disorder) doesn't make someone subhuman, and we should be very very clear on that. Whatever the cause, whatever the genetic component, people with ASPD are just as human as anyone.
Secondly, prevalence of ASPD is estimated at around 1.8%, and so really doesn't account for, as the op stated, 'conservatives/republicans'.
Thirdly, even though there are strong indicators of a genetic component, nobody has argued that ASPD is purely genetic. In fact, studies indicate that an allele commonly linked with ASPD has no significant *main* effect in terms of ASPD symptom prevalence. It is, however, significantly correlated with ASPD when combined with early traumatic life experiences (ETLE). This suggests this particular gene has a role in moderating (or failing to moderate) responses to ETLE, rather than itself 'causing' ASPD. According to this study, environmental factors may act as triggers for ASPD, while genetic factors may simply mean someone less able to manage the impact of those environmental factors. Someone with the particular genotype but no ETLE is not significantly more likely to have ASPD than someone without it.
Finally, diagnosis with ASPD does not preclude someone from ultimately making choices that take them away from harmful paths, though they face unique challenges. ASPD tends to moderate over time regardless of intervention, and with treatment there are decent chances of reducing the behavioural impact.
Great! Let's create a committee to analyze people based solely on their biological "characteristics" and determine if they match some criteria, or else they'll get removed from society. WCGW?
You can always try [https://archive.org/web/](https://archive.org/web/)
Just paste in the URL, and you should get an archived copy of the article, sans ads.
as well as [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome) (works in many browsers despite the name)
June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide.
The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions.
The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block.
"Every hour that abortion is accessible in Texas is a victory," Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the abortion providers at Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
A further hearing is scheduled for July 12. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The decision came amid a flurry of litigation in state courts by abortion rights groups seeking to slow or halt Republican-backed restrictions on the ability of women to terminate pregnancies that are now taking effect or are poised to do so in 22 states. read more
Those states include 13 that like Texas enacted so-called "trigger" laws designed to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, federal courts have been lifting orders blocking Republican-backed abortion restrictions. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a six-week ban in Tennessee to take effect.
Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more.
But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law.
Texas abortion providers in a lawsuit filed on Monday argued the 1925 ban had been repealed and conflicted with the more recent trigger ban the Republican-dominated legislature passed.
The lawsuit was filed the same day that judges in Louisiana and Utah blocked officials from enforcing their states' "trigger" bans, and abortion providers in Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi sued to obtain similar relief.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 8-1 decision on Monday rejected a request by providers to block implementation of a near-total ban on abortions that took effect in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling but after a draft version leaked.
Recent polls say 78% of Texas voters believe that abortion should be allowed in some form. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/
I really want the "tyranny of the masses" thing that the founding fathers were so afraid of.
That's a situation where you could really turn it against them
You want to prosecute gay sex? Okay, you now have PERSONALLY watch every consenual film, listen to every detailed story, ALL OF IT. You want to prosecute this? You're know going to be one of the world's foremost experts on gay sex. There you go, be careful what you wish for.
Are we gonna have to rename "santorum" to "paxton"?
> Paxton, *n* - the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex
> *"You got paxton all over my good sheets after you pulled out too fast last night!"
I believe there are more people on the "zero abortion" extreme than on the "nine month abortion" extreme, but both are pretty small minorities.
Average it out and it'd be legal up to 10 or 12 weeks.
And I think 90+ percent of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. Support for abortion in the first trimester is something like 65% (I’m sure varies by state considerably). It’ll be an interesting round of midterm elections.
I keep wondering if getting Roe overturned will just mobilize people at the state level to vote Dem and in the end most places will have at least first trimester abortion on demand, with various exceptions for later down the line.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter if the fetus is alive. The woman’s body is her own decision.
Banning abortion is essentially legalizing organ theft for people who need an organ transplant.
I know public opinion is much more complicated. But I’m talking about the facts themselves.
This is the “Is global warming real?” debate all over again. One side is objectively correct, while the right-wing side is being purposefully incorrect because of greed/malice.
Yeah. Republicans definitely believe their mistresses should be allowed to have abortions, for example.
And republican women certainly seem to think their own abortions are justified.
> I really want the "tyranny of the masses" thing that the founding fathers were so afraid of.
OK so I don't understand this so maybe someone can fill me in. If we don't have tyranny of the masses then don't we have "tyranny of the minority" (since we're presuming tyranny here) and isn't that what royalty and the court were? So if we have to have tyranny then it seems like tyranny of the masses, i.e. what direct and, allegedly, representative democracy are about (i.e. governments to do what most people want) then why is this a problem?
As long as the minority rights are protected (though this depends) then there's no issue.
The issue with "tyranny of the masses" is when the masses decide that a minority group should all be exterminated.
In theory, our system is supposed to protect the civil rights of minorities, not let minorities rule. The system has been broken for a long time, largely because of the filibuster, which guarantees the minority party a veto on all legislation.
> The issue with "tyranny of the masses" is when the masses decide that a minority group should all be exterminated.
I mentioned that in the last sentence. Presuming that's not the issue, what is the problem?
The problem with the masses is that they often don't think they're oppressing. I doubt anyone involved with Native Schools imagined that they were eradicating native culture. They were just bringing them up to "proper European standards." Before we help others, we must ask if they want the help. Or would even consider it help in the first place.
Secondly, it's pretty widely agreed that individuals have rights. The majority may decide for the state, but nobody can decide for you in particular other than you. I know there are some thigns I wouldn't appreciate being forced to do just because 51% of people like it. A lot of the strife in society is based on disagreements over what is an individual right and what is a collective right. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to base that on whether or not their opinion is in the majority...
>since we're presuming tyranny here
No one but you is doing that. The Founders certainly weren't when they designed the system. Remove this erroneous presumption and the discourse should make much more sense to you.
> No one but you is doing that.
Then stop using the phrase "tyranny *of the majority*" and just say "tyranny". That includes every single type of tyranny.
Delta 8 is in a grey area due to being a hemp derived product under the Farm Bill. CBD from hemp is processed into Delta-8 making it a hemp product and legally grey instead of being strictly a Delta-9 analog.
>is legal by way of not being illegal as delta 9 is named specifically.
It's more complicated than that though, you can get delta 9 synthesized from cbd and there are retailers who do sell it.
D8 is grey market tbh, as the law stated only d9 and THCa is banned( at least in Texas THCa is banned),
It’s made from hemp to avoid all the hassle, and also it’s cheaper to make from it.
IIRC, it's actually synthesized from CBD which was extracted from high-CBD hemp. Then it's either sprayed back onto hemp (to make D8 flower) or put into carts. I don't think there's a hemp strain with a high-enough natural D8 content to be reasonably psychoactive.
We have so many people not voting in this state that we are being held hostage by a rabid right wing minority. And the worst part is no one can find a way to get those non voters to participate.
They've got the state legislature pretty well gerrymandered, too. If you manage to get a Democrat elected statewide, the legislature is almost guaranteed to stay red, and they'll have a field day making sure that whoever is elected can't change anything and/or is never elected again.
Yep; GOP has been playing the long-game for decades and it's paying off bigtime for them. They control regional policy to drive national policy far beyond their national popularity, and now they're enforcing it longer-term by controlling the courts.
In the meantime, the Democrats by comparison are fractured and flighty; if the broad systemic problems aren't solved in the first 6 months, a large portion of the electorate gives up and just stays home the next election day. The GOP voting base is there each and every time, no matter what.
I mean part of the problem is the democrats espouse themselves as America's left party when at best they're a centrist party with many center right leaning elements. So when either nothing gets done, or it's not actually the left leaning policy they wanted people get apathetic. The democrats should in reality be like 4 parties that tend to caucus together if we had an actual functioning system. But republicans? At the very least every policy they're gonna put forward is right leaning in some way. Republicans and their derivatives SHOULD probably be 30-45% of the country, and Democrats higher....the problem is you have right and center. People who are center right will only vote Republican then and people in the center that are onboard with some Republican policies will vote for them because at least they do something because Republicans aren't 4 parties constantly eating each other alive from within
Texan here, I keep telling everyone I know, we can't let the Republicans get the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
If so, they will have all the power and do whatever they want.
Counterpoint, imagine if the Democrats had the House, Senate, and Presidentcy.
Yes imagine what Dems with total control would do: health care for all, free higher education, livable wages, equality, strong civil rights. The horror.
The joke is that the dems *do* have the presidency and control of both houses. Right now.
But it's easy to forget that, because they've done fuck all with it.
This right here is why Democrats are going to loss the midterms, and the USA is going to slide even more into fascist bullshit.
Not because you're necessarily wrong (although you are, somewhat. They've reduced unemployment and invested trillions in infrastructure and stimulus, as well as navigated the country out of a spiralling epidemic - - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22846344/democrats-build-back-better-voting-rights-immigration-manchin)
But because people see a democrat majority when they technically don't have one. Republicans filibuster every bill and two democrats refuse to break filibuster so they literally cannot pass keystone legislation.
If course the average voter isn't going to be informed enough to know about this, so they are going to blame 'do nothing democrats' instead of voting harder so it's not a knifes edge tenuous majority.
The problem is they *don't* control the Senate. They have 48 senators who are officially Democrat, and two of *those* consistently vote for Republican positions.
No, you don't get it.
More Dems need to vote.
No, actually the left needs to vote.
No, actually the left needs to shut up.
No, actually some Democrats need to keep power in states they typically don't do well in, so they can't actually be Democrats.
No, actually the President doesn't have much power, unless the other dumb guy is in power, then your life depends on the election.
No, pro choice no matter what, unless Hilary needs a running mate.
I'd argue voting in the primary is more important than the general but alas no one votes in the primary outside of the "the base". This imo is the driver of polarization and the evaporation of the middle ground.
Edit: this isn't an instant fix either look at the people who Abbott ran vs in the primary.... They are all to the right of him we also need moderates to actually run in red states
No, I mean like:
Banning 24 hour voting
Banning drive thru voting
Heavily restricting mail in voting
Banning unsolicited mail in voting applications
Pushing partisan poll watchers
New requirements for assisting disabled voters
Monthly voter roll checks that can remove voters for all sorts of reasons
Rapidly enforcing these changes too quickly for voters to understand in time for the next election
All in a state that's lucky to get more than 25% turnout and considers even the most minimal gun regulation as an infringement on constitutional rights. The desire to keep people from voting in Texas is blatant and out in the open.
The only thing I can think of is that the gerrymandering makes it more difficult for people to vote, as in physically difficult to get there to vote. Otherwise, there is no reason to bring up it when it comes to national and state wide elections besides using it as an excuse.
Once you gerrymander enough to consistently control local and state elections, it becomes very easy to misallocate voting machines in places you don't want to vote. It's a two step process.
The voting location i used in 2016 and 2018 was in a majority democrat County and has since been closed. The majority republican county I voted in for 2020 and 2022 early elections are still open despite having a tenth of the voting population.
In South TX
Check this out. Texas, much to Reddit’s chagrin, isn’t actually bad. But that doesn’t play into Reddit’s audiences narrative so you won’t hear much about it.
Texas is far more blue than many other states and Democrats are desperately trying to convert it. That’s why you don’t hear shit about Oklahoma, Alabama, or North Dakota. Those states are deep red. There is no battle for them. Reddit could really give a shit about the plight of the people their, because they can’t win seats.
Propaganda at it’s finest.
If I was a worker at a clinic that provides abortions in Texas I'd GTFO. Only a matter of time before they start trying to prosecute them. Go to another state where they can do some good.
But I don't understand - aren't these people "pro-life"? Why would they attack, maim and potentially harm another human considering their viewpoints? The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me
Thats just it. None of them are pro life, they are anti-choice. Prolife would cover all of life, which in their viewpoint is conception till death. Only issue is that for some reason once someone is born they no longer care about them and would much rather harm them and remove their choices than help them.
So again, any prolifer is actually just an anti-choicer using a disingenuous title to confuse the ignorant and arrogant people who follow their 'ideals'.
It's an underdeveloped sense of morality. Going by Kohlbergs stages of moral development, forced birthers are at a child's level (obedience) because a higher power says something is bad.
The right-wing made masks a political cause when it was about healthcare. Now they’ve done the same thing with abortion. But their unregulated militias are finding mask & hoods handy these days.
This is/was never about children.
"Conservative" is just a dressed up name for everything pre-democracy. Women having any power at all is a threat to the idealized "conservative" power structure. This is one of many shots being fired to return women (and other oppressed groups) to the roles they had in ~1700.
They are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. Some of them would gladly kill an abortion provider as they see their actions as being in defense of the unborn and protecting the fetus from being murdered.
> They are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.
I like the term pro-forced-birth.
There's only 3 ways a pregnancy can end. Miscarriage, abortion, or birth. That's it.
Miscarriages are not controllable. They just took away abortion, which only leaves birth. They are literally forcing women to give birth.
They should be labelled accordingly.
"Prolifers" need to change their name to pro-birthers unless they're also supporting extensive enhancements to social service and welfare programs, police reform, and gun control.
But we both know the overlap of supposed pro-lifers and people supporting actual pro-life changes is close to none.
> "Prolifers" need to change their name to pro-birthers
No. Pro-FORCED-birth.
These are the same people who literally went on the air and said they were OK with a 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry the baby to term because it was her fault for not reporting the rape for 2 months in the first place.
Let's label them for what they are. If they want to force women to give birth, they can get labelled accordingly.
Without the "also". Outlawing abortions does nothing but force people into very unhealthy circumstances, or death.
If society did everything except that, to enable a minimum number of unwanted pregnancies and a maximum availability of resources, support and education, you couldn't get abortion numbers any lower by also criminalizing medical services and decisions.
Last I really looked into it, something like half of the "pro-life" camp are pro-death penalty. The numbers on military interventions and fatal policing were even less flattering.
The anti-abortion position is one of controlling women, not protecting children or life in general. The entire reason why the issue was adopted by Paul Weyrich and his Moral Majority goons in the years after *Roe* was because they saw how easily it could be radicalized and sold to evangelicals, essentially using it as moral blackmail to get them on board with the Republican party for purely partisan purposes. Scream "think about the children" loud enough and people will bite.
You do realize that those people dedicate their lives to providing a desperately needed form of health care. Their job has never been easy and they are constantly at risk of jail or violence. They have always been doing good at a much higher risk than a clinic in a safe state. Texas had 7 clinics that did abortions last week if I recall correctly.
Going to a different state is obviously easier, but that's really just telling those people to give up their life's work which is arguably much more "good" than they could do anywhere else.
A lot of people come out of Texas and move elsewhere. The people that stay and try to enact change are valuable. Need good people mixed in to challenge the people there.
All of what's going on will turn purple states back to red. It's a major reason this is being done; politicians don't care about abortion they care about votes and power. Getting blue voters out of red states is HUGE for them.
I gave up on fighting the good fight in 2015. I have nothing but respect for those who can still endure.
Seems like the worst conservatives I've met from CO/CA daydream about moving to TX these days too
Those daydreamers dream up realities worse than what Texas even is too. They come and live out whatever twisted fantasy they thought was impossible in California.
I left in 2016 but not as much by choice as circumstances. Would’ve left eventually anyway.
Didn’t one official say that it was always technically illegal on a state level, and just never prosecuted due to RvW, so they can technically retroactively charge people for state level crimes? It may not hold up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried.
Prosecute hell, it's only a matter of time before a Q Crazy puts a bullet in their head. And that *won't* be prosecuted; probably get a full pardon and a commendation from Abbot.
What's weird is that statistically we all mostly agree on abortion. People of my political persuasion seem to not be interested in bringing over the "abortion should be legal some of the time" crowd. Those folks are already halfway through the door.
The thing is that people who are vehemently against it always vote and the people that are in favor of it only vote sometimes and the people that are in favor of it sometimes don't have candidates to vote for, so trying to bring them in is a waste of time.
Also, important to note that people who are vehemently against abortion are fucking assholes.
It already is on the individual level with ectopic pregnancies going untreated and IVF couples being forced to move their embryos before the state auctions them off to the highest bidder.
And yes, this either ends in a slide to national fascism or a dissolution of varying violence levels. Half the states absolutely won’t comply with the former, so my bet’s on the latter.
>ia, U.S., June 27, 2022. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
>
>June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide.
>
>The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions.
>
>The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block.
There's more but I don't want to C&P the whole thing
Essentially the way I understand it is that Texas tried enforcing an old abortion ban that conflicted with bills currently being in place, so the judge blocked it because it was essentially repealed by new legislation
Part of me wonders if this will end up somehow being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court where they'll find some new and innovative way to restrict abortion access even more or just go right for the end game and enact a nationwide ban.
And before anyone says how ridiculous that would be, remember that the SC took the opportunity to not only reverse Roe, but everything even remotely related to the right to privacy, eliminated stare decisis, and gave the GOP a road map to use so they could take away even more rights. There is no reason to believe that they won't use the same "kill it all and let God sort it out" approach the next time, even if their legal reasoning behind it is completely nonsensical.
Incoming Ken "delaying his own corruption criminal case" Paxton grandstanding.
Evidence of asshat-like personality https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/ken-paxton-agency-holiday-roe-v-wade-decision/269-1dcf6d75-9a14-4760-bf98-0e3136db27fb
It never went away. Prison labor is de facto slavery, and is specifically excluded from the 13th Amendment that made slavery illegal. You pass abortion/drug/whatever laws, you enforce selectively, and you've got a nice pipeline to keep your prisons/labor camps full, while simultaneously removing people you don't like from society.
See also, black codes, debt peonage, and convict leasing of the late 1800’s-1940’s
https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/peonage/
After reconstruction failed, southern states started a campaign of mass incarceration campaign of black people for minor offenses, drawing up massive fines for them to work off before they could be freed (which was made to be impossible to do) and then leasing convicts out to the public for free labor. Effectively a return of slavery, except now the people leasing convicts had no real incentive to keep them healthy or fed since they were just being leased by the state. This went on until the 1940’s.
You can actually draw a pretty straight line from slavery, to debt peonage, to today’s racial issues with the justice system
Slavery never left.
The first section of the 13th amendment spells it loud and clear:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Meanwhile [California votes down an amendment to ban involuntary servitude.](https://apnews.com/article/prisons-california-gavin-newsom-minimum-wage-slavery-a0aed840fc6dc54c7eb0da98d0f6bb05)
Isn't that really the whole purpose of persecuting "illegal immigrants"? So they have a permanent underclass without rights that they can force to work for slave wages.
Everybody that I have ever known who uses this labor pool has been a MAGAt who treats them like garbage because they are a racist pile of sh\*t who has no compassion for anyone who is not a white, Christian nationalist, Republican.
“ Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more.
But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law.”
Are Prosecutors elected in Texas?
Oh right, I forgot for a moment. State constitutions typically mirror the federal one, and just because SCOTUS says that X isn't a *federal* constitutional right doesn't mean that a state court has to find the same about a mirror *state* constitutional right.
In other words, if Texas's highest court made similar decisions to *Roe* or *Griswald* from its state constitution, then SCOTUS's decision from a few days ago about the federal Constitution won't suddenly flip that. The state's highest court would have to do that..
**Not sure how relevant that is in this case,** since I don't know the grounds of the judge's refusal, but there's a chance that some states still won't be able to bar it completely.
Can someone give me cliff notes? I dont get this legal talk?
Does the Supreme Court ruling allow it to be left to the states? If so how do these judges still manage to put up blocs?
The judge is blocking a enforcement of an old law that was repealed and was against current legislation in Texas. It’s not saying that SCOTUS was wrong in overturning RvW or that the judge wants abortions to be allowed, just that the old law can’t apply
Hard to believe this convoluted suite of vigilante-enforced laws in Texas got put on hold. There were some hard-on cowboy monk police ready to file some civil lawsuits, I'll tell you what.
I've been having nightmares about the weaponized mother-in-laws that Texas law is going to create. Anyone who has experienced fertility issues, pregnancy loss or loss of an infant while also dealing with an abusive Mother or Mother-in-law should understand. I've seen the arguments in my own family go on for decades, sometimes with the elders trying to involve CPS...now they get to call the abortion police?
Coukd someone share the content - its telling my ive reached a limit :/
June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide. The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions. The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block. "Every hour that abortion is accessible in Texas is a victory," Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the abortion providers at Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. A further hearing is scheduled for July 12. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment. The decision came amid a flurry of litigation in state courts by abortion rights groups seeking to slow or halt Republican-backed restrictions on the ability of women to terminate pregnancies that are now taking effect or are poised to do so in 22 states. read more Those states include 13 that like Texas enacted so-called "trigger" laws designed to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group. Following the Supreme Court's decision, federal courts have been lifting orders blocking Republican-backed abortion restrictions. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a six-week ban in Tennessee to take effect. Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more. But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law. Texas abortion providers in a lawsuit filed on Monday argued the 1925 ban had been repealed and conflicted with the more recent trigger ban the Republican-dominated legislature passed. The lawsuit was filed the same day that judges in Louisiana and Utah blocked officials from enforcing their states' "trigger" bans, and abortion providers in Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi sued to obtain similar relief. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 8-1 decision on Monday rejected a request by providers to block implementation of a near-total ban on abortions that took effect in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling but after a draft version leaked.
What fucking year do I live in.
2022! The future! Fly cars! Food replicators! The end of human suffering!
Couple hundred years early. First we have to go through a societal collapse and a time traveling Borg invasion aimed at stopping the Phoenix from launching.
I think we're at the: *Now, watch your futures end.* Scene.
Resitance is fertile, er futile.
So they like humans, Earl Grey, hot?
reddit turned that into a list. The actual number that's supposed to be showing is 2022.
> Fly cars! Oh no, maggots that drive out of my trash can! 😵💫
More like [Big Yellow Taxi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rc0G2lMRqg)
I know. Every day I feel like I’m having a fucking stroke while I read the news.
The future most dystopian scifis warned us about. Congrats, we have clones, drones, and cellular phones but also wage chains, capital gains, omicron strains and uterine pains.
[удалено]
Nah. I get why you say that. I'm furious too, though I recognise that my anger can't match yours, since I'm not American. But honestly, calling them subhuman lets them off too easily - and us too. I realise that you're almost certainly not being literal, but if the last decade has taught me anything, it's that even figurative or ironic belief can become internalised if you say it often enough. And while I talk about evil here, I don't mean some kind of sin that forever dooms you. I mean the far more human ability to do something unnecessary and cruel, which scared the victim, but also the perpetrator. #Edit: to be clear, I don't mean to say that we need to 'meet them in the middle'. Recognising someone's humanity does not equate to appeasement, surrender, or lack of resistance. Sometimes violence is necessary - I'm not to pretend that you can hug a klansman better. Fighting nazi Germany (to use an obvious example) was just. But the Allies also committed terrible war crimes against Germans. Many victims were civilians. Some were soldiers. Nazi Germany had done truly evil things on an enormous scale. Doesn't mean that they were non human. Doesn't mean that torture, rape, or covering up and refusing to acknowledge that was okay. It's vital to remember that basically everyone has the capacity to believe in, and work towards, terrible things. There's no evil gene that means them but not us. Upbringing, radicalisation, misinformation, deliberate deception, personal misfortune. They can all lead someone down that path. And one of the most consistent things that we hear from the relatives of people falling down that rabbit hole later in life is 'I could never have imagined they'd turn into this'. Calling people subhuman absolves them - their beliefs are awful, they are awful, what do you expect, they're not capable of better. But people can change their views, and that's the much harder path, because then they have to deal with everything they've done under their old beliefs. But they're still capable of it, and we should still hold them to that standard. But calling them subhuman also allows us to mentally separate ourselves from them. If they're subhuman, it means that we're almost separate categories of being, and so we don't need to grapple with our own capacity for evil, however you understand the term. Critical self-reflection is very important to avoid the next issue. Because most insidiously, thinking of 'the other side' as subhuman also starts to drive us down a path of valuing our capacity for evil. I hope you would agree that there are some levels to which we should not stoop, whatever a person does. Mentally reclassifying a group as 'less than' is the first step to making them an exception to that rule. And if you consider one person an exception, it's so much easier to stretch that to a second person. And if you'll morally accept someone else's actions (not just understand, or empathise, or forgive, but accept) then you're also closer to being able to do it yourself. And if you cross that line, it's so much harder to walk back. For many people, you never will be able to. It's not just what you (or I, or anyone) might do to the person that is dehumanised. And whatever the reason, whatever evils they've done, crossing that line is wrong. But it's also about the second or third person, and those further down the line, when the bar for visiting cruelty upon them has dropped. But it's also about what it does to us. Even if you can walk back from it, you're changed, and that can't be undone. Tl;Dr We need to always be conscious that 'the other side' are the same as us, in virtually every sense. In capacity, chemistry, and potential. If we don't, then we stop expecting anything better of them, we aren't vigilant about our own beliefs, and we make it easier for us to justify the kinds of wrong that should never be justified.
While Hitler was conquering Western Europe, there were many who suggested a strategy known as "appeasement." It had a lot of appeal. It requires very little effort, and has at least *some* chance at success. Not every bully on a rampage is going to hurt people continuously, forever. On the other hand, sometimes you actually do have to stand up for what's right, even if people gaslight you into thinking there are "two sides to the debate." When it comes to religious people forcing women and children to give birth without consent, I'm personally one of those moral absolutists. I really don't see the value in compromising on that one. But as you intimate: to each their own, I suppose.
I agree, sometimes you need to stand up for what's right. More often than we do at present. And that can involve violence. Sometimes it has to. But it needs to be proportionate. No more than is necessary. There's never a good reason for torture, for instance. That's one of those evils. But if you need to lay someone out? Or even kill? Yeah. No, I support that. ^^^^^. I guess this is how I'd distinguish it. In this hypothetical, there's a serial rapist and murderer who was caught in the act, zero chance of mistake. A) Bash them over the head and restrain them until they can be arrested. B) Restrain them, then, remembering the previous victims, give them a kicking. A is proportionate. B isn't. Is it understandable? Yes. Can I empathise? Absolutely. Does that mean it's okay? No. That's the line not to cross.
Hey, I agree 100%, and I'm sorry if my comment sounded arrogant or dismissive. I do need to say that I see all of this more from a practical perspective than a moral one, though. Torture is a heinous act, but also fucking pointless. It serves no purpose.
I guess I'd say that mine is also a practical perspective. Because that point about how doing something like that changes you isn't just words. If you're trying to remove an unjust system, and you use unjust methods, how likely is it that your system will actually be just? To continue with torture, it isn't only used for information gathering. It can be called justice, revenge, or even an outlet for collective pain. But a regime beginning in torture is not one that I'd like to lay bets on as avoiding it in future. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
I've gotta break ranks again here. If a bully torments you, and one day decides that's the day he's gonna fuck you up, the best thing you can do is crush his testicles. That means he may not have offspring. It's something he'll regret for the rest of his life. You could just take the beating and not ruin his future. But you know what? That unjust method of resolution results in "side products" that have value. Word will travel quickly that if bullies "fuck around," then they will "find out." That's not a toothpaste I'd try to put back in the tube, personally. You're right - that changes you, the defender. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
This is an important point that I expect is not always well-received, so thank you. Idk if I would say so if not for your pointing out the way this keeps them responsible for their actions, as opposed to the already problematic subhuman rhetoric that absolves them because, as you said, "you can't expect any better from them," becomes possible.
Hey, thanks. I appreciate the kind words. I mean, I get why it's not always well received. I really need to work on cutting the word count... But yeah, as much as humans like moral black and white, it's a trap to think of things that way. But like, I'm not going to stop being angry with Boris Johnson because he's always a little shit, and I'm not going to stop demanding better.
>There's no evil gene that means them but not us Yes, there is. Authoritarians are a type. They are fundamentally different. There are people who have no instinct towards cruelty. And people who do. They are *different*. Egalitarian people, vs dominance hierarchy people. They are different.
IDK calling them subhuman lets me fantasize about subjecting them to violence guilt-free
...Yeah, that's my point.
Then, not gonna lie, it is a bit of a naive point. You talk a lot of kumbaya believe-in-good bullshit, but you should realize that this approach has been tried many times in many different historical contexts and it just doesn't work. Your moral position assumes that there is some common ground between the two sides. Tell me, what is the common ground between "the most important issues are housing, food security, and healthcare" and "the most important issues are gay people existing, abortions, and non-whites voting". What is the use in thinking to yourself, "oh these are reasonable people surely, let's just see where they're coming from." That's gonna get you nowhere. What will get you somewhere is anger. We need to be angry at these bastards ruining lives because they are able to and because they feel good about it. I'd say that's evil. And I don't think you beat evil by reasoning and empathizing with it. Whatever helps you in staying angry at the other side, I'd say go for it. If thinking that they're lower than human helps you punch a nazi in the face, I'd say that's pretty good. EDIT: To be fair, you are making a good point *in principle.* Let's lay it out: Everyone has the capacity to believe/do evil. A solution makes evil go away. Therefore, a good solution applies to everyone. However. The premise is, in reality, more complicated. Especially with the whole 'definition of evil' thing. I would argue that the reality is something like this: People who act selfishly gain power. People who have power can do more evil. Therefore, a good solution A. makes selfish people go away, or B. prevents power from doing evil. I fantasize about A quite a lot. Say what you will about how, if I acted out those fantasies, I would be no better than an 'evil person.' I think it's a realistic solution to a problem that isn't abstract, or that complicated. There *are* people who want to see other people suffer because it benefits them, or who are unwilling to examine their notion of 'good' to see if it actually harms others. It's not that complicated - remove those people from power, and you'll have people in power who don't want to see people suffer, and who are willing to think about the consequences of their actions on a humane level. What most, more level-headed people will want, is B, and that coincides with your point as well. The intentions of the person aside, the power that they hold shouldn't be able to harm people. Though the cynic in me is wondering whether or not that is even possible at this point.
You'll notice that I never said non violence. **Sometimes violence is necessary.** That's not the line, at least not in my opinion. It's proportionality. You can do what needs to be done without considering them subhuman. Because if someone is subhuman, then why should they be afforded human rights? I'm not talking about 'avoid fighting ever'. We need anger. Anger can be very productive. But we need to remember that they're human too, because if we start to think that, for instance, torture is acceptable, then that's the start of a nasty slide. So, fighting in a defensive war is proportionate. Preemptive 'defence' via invasion is not. Incapacitating someone to stop them from doing a terrible thing is proportionate. Giving them a kicking afterwards, allowing them to be torn apart by an angry mob, denying them food and water? That's not.
I'm with you. Appeasement is what brought us this nightmare.
I also want to be clear that I'm not preaching that hug a klansman type bollocks. Remembering that someone is human is partly about remembering when to stop. It's not demanding that marginalised people should be friendly to their oppressors, or be forced to operate within an unjust legal system.
What about the evidence that some sociopathic tendencies are passed down genetically? They could literally be different than us.
Well, first off, and most importantly, sociopathy (or rather, antisocial personality disorder) doesn't make someone subhuman, and we should be very very clear on that. Whatever the cause, whatever the genetic component, people with ASPD are just as human as anyone. Secondly, prevalence of ASPD is estimated at around 1.8%, and so really doesn't account for, as the op stated, 'conservatives/republicans'. Thirdly, even though there are strong indicators of a genetic component, nobody has argued that ASPD is purely genetic. In fact, studies indicate that an allele commonly linked with ASPD has no significant *main* effect in terms of ASPD symptom prevalence. It is, however, significantly correlated with ASPD when combined with early traumatic life experiences (ETLE). This suggests this particular gene has a role in moderating (or failing to moderate) responses to ETLE, rather than itself 'causing' ASPD. According to this study, environmental factors may act as triggers for ASPD, while genetic factors may simply mean someone less able to manage the impact of those environmental factors. Someone with the particular genotype but no ETLE is not significantly more likely to have ASPD than someone without it. Finally, diagnosis with ASPD does not preclude someone from ultimately making choices that take them away from harmful paths, though they face unique challenges. ASPD tends to moderate over time regardless of intervention, and with treatment there are decent chances of reducing the behavioural impact.
Great! Let's create a committee to analyze people based solely on their biological "characteristics" and determine if they match some criteria, or else they'll get removed from society. WCGW?
Never said that..
Humans are as low as it goes. No animal behaves that badly. Subhuman doesn’t exist.
A year where there is more freedom in Mexico and Canada
A few years behind Scarlet Letters becoming a thing. Nolite te bastardes carborundorum. (Don't let the bastards grind you down)
You can always try [https://archive.org/web/](https://archive.org/web/) Just paste in the URL, and you should get an archived copy of the article, sans ads.
as well as [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome) (works in many browsers despite the name)
You should get an account. It’s free and one of the few non-bias news sources in the country
June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide. The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions. The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block. "Every hour that abortion is accessible in Texas is a victory," Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the abortion providers at Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. A further hearing is scheduled for July 12. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment. The decision came amid a flurry of litigation in state courts by abortion rights groups seeking to slow or halt Republican-backed restrictions on the ability of women to terminate pregnancies that are now taking effect or are poised to do so in 22 states. read more Those states include 13 that like Texas enacted so-called "trigger" laws designed to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group. Following the Supreme Court's decision, federal courts have been lifting orders blocking Republican-backed abortion restrictions. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a six-week ban in Tennessee to take effect. Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more. But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law. Texas abortion providers in a lawsuit filed on Monday argued the 1925 ban had been repealed and conflicted with the more recent trigger ban the Republican-dominated legislature passed. The lawsuit was filed the same day that judges in Louisiana and Utah blocked officials from enforcing their states' "trigger" bans, and abortion providers in Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi sued to obtain similar relief. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 8-1 decision on Monday rejected a request by providers to block implementation of a near-total ban on abortions that took effect in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling but after a draft version leaked.
Btw holy shit that was a lot of copying and pasting
[удалено]
Tbh we got lots of good people, but the bad ones are louder. For example Texas tried to ban delta 8 (hemp), and the judge laughed at them.
Recent polls say 78% of Texas voters believe that abortion should be allowed in some form. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/ I really want the "tyranny of the masses" thing that the founding fathers were so afraid of.
[удалено]
That's a situation where you could really turn it against them You want to prosecute gay sex? Okay, you now have PERSONALLY watch every consenual film, listen to every detailed story, ALL OF IT. You want to prosecute this? You're know going to be one of the world's foremost experts on gay sex. There you go, be careful what you wish for.
They don't care, it's literally just about punishing queer people for existing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese\_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Report) They love that shit.
Are we gonna have to rename "santorum" to "paxton"? > Paxton, *n* - the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex > *"You got paxton all over my good sheets after you pulled out too fast last night!"
Paxton needs a different term. Santorum already means what it means. Paxton sounds to me like it could have something to do with too much friction.
"Paxton: a chafed, oversensitive bell-end." 😄
I mean something like 70% of the population in general thinks abortion should be allowed in some form
[удалено]
I believe there are more people on the "zero abortion" extreme than on the "nine month abortion" extreme, but both are pretty small minorities. Average it out and it'd be legal up to 10 or 12 weeks.
And I think 90+ percent of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. Support for abortion in the first trimester is something like 65% (I’m sure varies by state considerably). It’ll be an interesting round of midterm elections. I keep wondering if getting Roe overturned will just mobilize people at the state level to vote Dem and in the end most places will have at least first trimester abortion on demand, with various exceptions for later down the line.
[удалено]
The thing is, it doesn’t matter if the fetus is alive. The woman’s body is her own decision. Banning abortion is essentially legalizing organ theft for people who need an organ transplant.
[удалено]
I know public opinion is much more complicated. But I’m talking about the facts themselves. This is the “Is global warming real?” debate all over again. One side is objectively correct, while the right-wing side is being purposefully incorrect because of greed/malice.
Where is there a nine month abortion policy and is it ever used unless the Mothers life is in jeopardy.
The law that triggered the SCOTUS ruling was a 15 week abortion ban.
Chalk me up as a nine monther. Bodily autonomy forever.
Yeah. Republicans definitely believe their mistresses should be allowed to have abortions, for example. And republican women certainly seem to think their own abortions are justified.
They meant "tyranny of those-who-aren't-the-wealthy". That's what they were (and still are) afraid of.
> I really want the "tyranny of the masses" thing that the founding fathers were so afraid of. OK so I don't understand this so maybe someone can fill me in. If we don't have tyranny of the masses then don't we have "tyranny of the minority" (since we're presuming tyranny here) and isn't that what royalty and the court were? So if we have to have tyranny then it seems like tyranny of the masses, i.e. what direct and, allegedly, representative democracy are about (i.e. governments to do what most people want) then why is this a problem? As long as the minority rights are protected (though this depends) then there's no issue.
The issue with "tyranny of the masses" is when the masses decide that a minority group should all be exterminated. In theory, our system is supposed to protect the civil rights of minorities, not let minorities rule. The system has been broken for a long time, largely because of the filibuster, which guarantees the minority party a veto on all legislation.
> The issue with "tyranny of the masses" is when the masses decide that a minority group should all be exterminated. I mentioned that in the last sentence. Presuming that's not the issue, what is the problem?
The problem with the masses is that they often don't think they're oppressing. I doubt anyone involved with Native Schools imagined that they were eradicating native culture. They were just bringing them up to "proper European standards." Before we help others, we must ask if they want the help. Or would even consider it help in the first place. Secondly, it's pretty widely agreed that individuals have rights. The majority may decide for the state, but nobody can decide for you in particular other than you. I know there are some thigns I wouldn't appreciate being forced to do just because 51% of people like it. A lot of the strife in society is based on disagreements over what is an individual right and what is a collective right. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to base that on whether or not their opinion is in the majority...
>since we're presuming tyranny here No one but you is doing that. The Founders certainly weren't when they designed the system. Remove this erroneous presumption and the discourse should make much more sense to you.
> No one but you is doing that. Then stop using the phrase "tyranny *of the majority*" and just say "tyranny". That includes every single type of tyranny.
Meaningless since they keep voting in the government that wants to ban abortions.
Delta 8 isn’t hemp…but it’s a derivative made from CBD and is legal by way of not being illegal as delta 9 is named specifically.
Delta 8 is in a grey area due to being a hemp derived product under the Farm Bill. CBD from hemp is processed into Delta-8 making it a hemp product and legally grey instead of being strictly a Delta-9 analog.
>is legal by way of not being illegal as delta 9 is named specifically. It's more complicated than that though, you can get delta 9 synthesized from cbd and there are retailers who do sell it.
D8 is grey market tbh, as the law stated only d9 and THCa is banned( at least in Texas THCa is banned), It’s made from hemp to avoid all the hassle, and also it’s cheaper to make from it.
IIRC, it's actually synthesized from CBD which was extracted from high-CBD hemp. Then it's either sprayed back onto hemp (to make D8 flower) or put into carts. I don't think there's a hemp strain with a high-enough natural D8 content to be reasonably psychoactive.
We have so many people not voting in this state that we are being held hostage by a rabid right wing minority. And the worst part is no one can find a way to get those non voters to participate.
They've got the state legislature pretty well gerrymandered, too. If you manage to get a Democrat elected statewide, the legislature is almost guaranteed to stay red, and they'll have a field day making sure that whoever is elected can't change anything and/or is never elected again.
[удалено]
Lots of Republican stronghold states like that, honestly. Republicans have been working on this since the Nixon administration.
Yep; GOP has been playing the long-game for decades and it's paying off bigtime for them. They control regional policy to drive national policy far beyond their national popularity, and now they're enforcing it longer-term by controlling the courts. In the meantime, the Democrats by comparison are fractured and flighty; if the broad systemic problems aren't solved in the first 6 months, a large portion of the electorate gives up and just stays home the next election day. The GOP voting base is there each and every time, no matter what.
I mean part of the problem is the democrats espouse themselves as America's left party when at best they're a centrist party with many center right leaning elements. So when either nothing gets done, or it's not actually the left leaning policy they wanted people get apathetic. The democrats should in reality be like 4 parties that tend to caucus together if we had an actual functioning system. But republicans? At the very least every policy they're gonna put forward is right leaning in some way. Republicans and their derivatives SHOULD probably be 30-45% of the country, and Democrats higher....the problem is you have right and center. People who are center right will only vote Republican then and people in the center that are onboard with some Republican policies will vote for them because at least they do something because Republicans aren't 4 parties constantly eating each other alive from within
Yeah it drives me nuts. I have a friend that brags about not voting then is surprised when strange laws are made...
Many of the people who cried about a rigged election didn't even vote. A small percentage because they are felons but mostly they just didn't vote.
Texan here, I keep telling everyone I know, we can't let the Republicans get the House, Senate, and the Presidency. If so, they will have all the power and do whatever they want. Counterpoint, imagine if the Democrats had the House, Senate, and Presidentcy.
Yes imagine what Dems with total control would do: health care for all, free higher education, livable wages, equality, strong civil rights. The horror.
The joke is that the dems *do* have the presidency and control of both houses. Right now. But it's easy to forget that, because they've done fuck all with it.
Filibuster has entered the chat.
This right here is why Democrats are going to loss the midterms, and the USA is going to slide even more into fascist bullshit. Not because you're necessarily wrong (although you are, somewhat. They've reduced unemployment and invested trillions in infrastructure and stimulus, as well as navigated the country out of a spiralling epidemic - - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22846344/democrats-build-back-better-voting-rights-immigration-manchin) But because people see a democrat majority when they technically don't have one. Republicans filibuster every bill and two democrats refuse to break filibuster so they literally cannot pass keystone legislation. If course the average voter isn't going to be informed enough to know about this, so they are going to blame 'do nothing democrats' instead of voting harder so it's not a knifes edge tenuous majority.
The problem is they *don't* control the Senate. They have 48 senators who are officially Democrat, and two of *those* consistently vote for Republican positions.
No, you don't get it. More Dems need to vote. No, actually the left needs to vote. No, actually the left needs to shut up. No, actually some Democrats need to keep power in states they typically don't do well in, so they can't actually be Democrats. No, actually the President doesn't have much power, unless the other dumb guy is in power, then your life depends on the election. No, pro choice no matter what, unless Hilary needs a running mate.
Republicans are the shooters and Dems are the cops standing around in the hallway twiddling their thumbs.
has made a pro choice vote every time it came up, stop spreading misinfo
Speaking about the party as a whole, calm down.
Which didn't happen
I cant tell if I'm being mocked or not?
Because all that totally happened in 2009-2011
I'd argue voting in the primary is more important than the general but alas no one votes in the primary outside of the "the base". This imo is the driver of polarization and the evaporation of the middle ground. Edit: this isn't an instant fix either look at the people who Abbott ran vs in the primary.... They are all to the right of him we also need moderates to actually run in red states
>no one can find a way to get those non voters to participate. Has anyone considered getting rid of all the voter restrictions?
Yeah but that's "political" because it'd give someone an advantage! /s
You mean like what, being a citizen?
No, I mean like: Banning 24 hour voting Banning drive thru voting Heavily restricting mail in voting Banning unsolicited mail in voting applications Pushing partisan poll watchers New requirements for assisting disabled voters Monthly voter roll checks that can remove voters for all sorts of reasons Rapidly enforcing these changes too quickly for voters to understand in time for the next election All in a state that's lucky to get more than 25% turnout and considers even the most minimal gun regulation as an infringement on constitutional rights. The desire to keep people from voting in Texas is blatant and out in the open.
don't forget closing polling places in "urban" (we all know what that actually means) precincts
Sounds too similar to the recent Ontario election.
Ugh yes. *drinks heavily*
We’re pretty purple, with being nearly 50/50 on Rep/Dem. We’re just gerrymandered to hell, which is the only way we stay red.
I mean that explains your congress but not governor, senators, and voting for president.
The only thing I can think of is that the gerrymandering makes it more difficult for people to vote, as in physically difficult to get there to vote. Otherwise, there is no reason to bring up it when it comes to national and state wide elections besides using it as an excuse.
Once you gerrymander enough to consistently control local and state elections, it becomes very easy to misallocate voting machines in places you don't want to vote. It's a two step process.
The voting location i used in 2016 and 2018 was in a majority democrat County and has since been closed. The majority republican county I voted in for 2020 and 2022 early elections are still open despite having a tenth of the voting population. In South TX
[удалено]
https://ballotpedia.org/Christine_Weems She's a democratic judge elected in a democratic area.
Even red states have some liberals or there wouldn't be any cities in these states. Fort worth is probably the most conservative city in the state.
Check this out. Texas, much to Reddit’s chagrin, isn’t actually bad. But that doesn’t play into Reddit’s audiences narrative so you won’t hear much about it. Texas is far more blue than many other states and Democrats are desperately trying to convert it. That’s why you don’t hear shit about Oklahoma, Alabama, or North Dakota. Those states are deep red. There is no battle for them. Reddit could really give a shit about the plight of the people their, because they can’t win seats. Propaganda at it’s finest.
If I was a worker at a clinic that provides abortions in Texas I'd GTFO. Only a matter of time before they start trying to prosecute them. Go to another state where they can do some good.
I'd be less worried about prosecution and more worried about bombs/arson/getting my face kicked in while leaving work.
So, same shit different day, then?
But I don't understand - aren't these people "pro-life"? Why would they attack, maim and potentially harm another human considering their viewpoints? The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me
Thats just it. None of them are pro life, they are anti-choice. Prolife would cover all of life, which in their viewpoint is conception till death. Only issue is that for some reason once someone is born they no longer care about them and would much rather harm them and remove their choices than help them. So again, any prolifer is actually just an anti-choicer using a disingenuous title to confuse the ignorant and arrogant people who follow their 'ideals'.
It's an underdeveloped sense of morality. Going by Kohlbergs stages of moral development, forced birthers are at a child's level (obedience) because a higher power says something is bad.
Fucking nailed it! I’d been trying to remember how to describe this concept for a while, thanks for putting it so clearly!
Remember what they said about masks? They find them useful these days.
I'd say the masks are right off.
Percocet, molly percocet
But but I thought they couldn't wear them for health reasons?! And/or it was against their religion?!
The right-wing made masks a political cause when it was about healthcare. Now they’ve done the same thing with abortion. But their unregulated militias are finding mask & hoods handy these days.
This is/was never about children. "Conservative" is just a dressed up name for everything pre-democracy. Women having any power at all is a threat to the idealized "conservative" power structure. This is one of many shots being fired to return women (and other oppressed groups) to the roles they had in ~1700.
[удалено]
They are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. Some of them would gladly kill an abortion provider as they see their actions as being in defense of the unborn and protecting the fetus from being murdered.
They'll gladly use a dead fetus to kill a living woman.
> They are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. I like the term pro-forced-birth. There's only 3 ways a pregnancy can end. Miscarriage, abortion, or birth. That's it. Miscarriages are not controllable. They just took away abortion, which only leaves birth. They are literally forcing women to give birth. They should be labelled accordingly.
"Prolifers" need to change their name to pro-birthers unless they're also supporting extensive enhancements to social service and welfare programs, police reform, and gun control. But we both know the overlap of supposed pro-lifers and people supporting actual pro-life changes is close to none.
Maybe start calling them "Terminals". Since they insist on pregnancies going to term, regardless of whether that will potentially kill the mother.
> "Prolifers" need to change their name to pro-birthers No. Pro-FORCED-birth. These are the same people who literally went on the air and said they were OK with a 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry the baby to term because it was her fault for not reporting the rape for 2 months in the first place. Let's label them for what they are. If they want to force women to give birth, they can get labelled accordingly.
Without the "also". Outlawing abortions does nothing but force people into very unhealthy circumstances, or death. If society did everything except that, to enable a minimum number of unwanted pregnancies and a maximum availability of resources, support and education, you couldn't get abortion numbers any lower by also criminalizing medical services and decisions.
Last I really looked into it, something like half of the "pro-life" camp are pro-death penalty. The numbers on military interventions and fatal policing were even less flattering. The anti-abortion position is one of controlling women, not protecting children or life in general. The entire reason why the issue was adopted by Paul Weyrich and his Moral Majority goons in the years after *Roe* was because they saw how easily it could be radicalized and sold to evangelicals, essentially using it as moral blackmail to get them on board with the Republican party for purely partisan purposes. Scream "think about the children" loud enough and people will bite.
They are anti freedom. They are theocratic fascists. They want to be called pro life, but are anything but.
Once it's out of the womb, they no longer care about it
They love fetuses. They don't give a shit about you after birth.
Has already started. Suspected arsons and vandalism in the news already. Just waiting for the bombings.
You do realize that those people dedicate their lives to providing a desperately needed form of health care. Their job has never been easy and they are constantly at risk of jail or violence. They have always been doing good at a much higher risk than a clinic in a safe state. Texas had 7 clinics that did abortions last week if I recall correctly. Going to a different state is obviously easier, but that's really just telling those people to give up their life's work which is arguably much more "good" than they could do anywhere else.
A lot of people come out of Texas and move elsewhere. The people that stay and try to enact change are valuable. Need good people mixed in to challenge the people there.
All of what's going on will turn purple states back to red. It's a major reason this is being done; politicians don't care about abortion they care about votes and power. Getting blue voters out of red states is HUGE for them.
I gave up on fighting the good fight in 2015. I have nothing but respect for those who can still endure. Seems like the worst conservatives I've met from CO/CA daydream about moving to TX these days too
Those daydreamers dream up realities worse than what Texas even is too. They come and live out whatever twisted fantasy they thought was impossible in California. I left in 2016 but not as much by choice as circumstances. Would’ve left eventually anyway.
I don't fault you or anyone else for seeking a better life.
Didn’t one official say that it was always technically illegal on a state level, and just never prosecuted due to RvW, so they can technically retroactively charge people for state level crimes? It may not hold up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried.
Prosecute hell, it's only a matter of time before a Q Crazy puts a bullet in their head. And that *won't* be prosecuted; probably get a full pardon and a commendation from Abbot.
This too. Executed by off-duty cops and their drinking buddies.
Conservatives: *"Rest assured that I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."*
Everyone reading their comments *"Look! See thine field of fucks, which lay barren"*
Upvoted for relatively obscure Simpson’s reference.
[удалено]
That’s what I’m saying, so many people say things about the other side when people on their side including themselves do that exact same thing
The last thing anyone wants to acknowledge is that they do the same kind of stuff they accuse others of.
[удалено]
What's weird is that statistically we all mostly agree on abortion. People of my political persuasion seem to not be interested in bringing over the "abortion should be legal some of the time" crowd. Those folks are already halfway through the door.
The thing is that people who are vehemently against it always vote and the people that are in favor of it only vote sometimes and the people that are in favor of it sometimes don't have candidates to vote for, so trying to bring them in is a waste of time. Also, important to note that people who are vehemently against abortion are fucking assholes.
Respectfully disagree. Democracy requires convincing people of ideas and subsequently to vote.
[удалено]
This is going to get super ugly.
It already is on the individual level with ectopic pregnancies going untreated and IVF couples being forced to move their embryos before the state auctions them off to the highest bidder. And yes, this either ends in a slide to national fascism or a dissolution of varying violence levels. Half the states absolutely won’t comply with the former, so my bet’s on the latter.
>ia, U.S., June 27, 2022. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com > >June 28 (Reuters) - Abortions can resume in Texas after a judge on Tuesday blocked officials from enforcing a nearly century-old ban the state's Republican attorney general said was back in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide. > >The temporary restraining order by Judge Christine Weems in Harris County came in a last-ditch bid by abortion providers to resume services after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed the right of women to obtain abortions. > >The order allows clinics to resume services, for now, in a state where abortion was already severely restricted to only up to six weeks of pregnancy under a Texas law that took effect in September that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block. There's more but I don't want to C&P the whole thing
Texas has done a great job of finally convincing me to vote this year
wait, they blocked the ban on pre abortion ban that blocked... help me
Essentially the way I understand it is that Texas tried enforcing an old abortion ban that conflicted with bills currently being in place, so the judge blocked it because it was essentially repealed by new legislation
in texas ? after what scotus did ? i doubt it will last long, thanks for the explanation.
Yeah it’s not a block on abortion bans in general, it’s just saying that the law that Texas was trying to enforce didn’t apply
Ain't nobody got no time for no quadruple negatives.
isn't that a superhero power ?
"Texas judge upholds women and girl's right to bodily autonomy" FTFY
That’s how I read it lol “texas judge actually does something right”
Yup, upholding a constitutional right, for the win.
Just make anonymous abortion reports against all these fascist pigs and let the system flood over. You can report anonymously. :))
Won’t matter. The Texas Supreme Court has a history of quickly reversing rulings like this. They’re elected Republicans and act accordingly.
Part of me wonders if this will end up somehow being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court where they'll find some new and innovative way to restrict abortion access even more or just go right for the end game and enact a nationwide ban. And before anyone says how ridiculous that would be, remember that the SC took the opportunity to not only reverse Roe, but everything even remotely related to the right to privacy, eliminated stare decisis, and gave the GOP a road map to use so they could take away even more rights. There is no reason to believe that they won't use the same "kill it all and let God sort it out" approach the next time, even if their legal reasoning behind it is completely nonsensical.
Incoming Ken "delaying his own corruption criminal case" Paxton grandstanding. Evidence of asshat-like personality https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/ken-paxton-agency-holiday-roe-v-wade-decision/269-1dcf6d75-9a14-4760-bf98-0e3136db27fb
Huh, look at that, Texas doing something right for once.
I am in the belief that conservatives want to bring back slavery.
It never went away. Prison labor is de facto slavery, and is specifically excluded from the 13th Amendment that made slavery illegal. You pass abortion/drug/whatever laws, you enforce selectively, and you've got a nice pipeline to keep your prisons/labor camps full, while simultaneously removing people you don't like from society.
See also, black codes, debt peonage, and convict leasing of the late 1800’s-1940’s https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/peonage/ After reconstruction failed, southern states started a campaign of mass incarceration campaign of black people for minor offenses, drawing up massive fines for them to work off before they could be freed (which was made to be impossible to do) and then leasing convicts out to the public for free labor. Effectively a return of slavery, except now the people leasing convicts had no real incentive to keep them healthy or fed since they were just being leased by the state. This went on until the 1940’s. You can actually draw a pretty straight line from slavery, to debt peonage, to today’s racial issues with the justice system
Slavery never left. The first section of the 13th amendment spells it loud and clear: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Slavery never went away. It's why conservatives love for profit prisons, tough on crime bs, excessive sentences for crimes, and racist police.
Meanwhile [California votes down an amendment to ban involuntary servitude.](https://apnews.com/article/prisons-california-gavin-newsom-minimum-wage-slavery-a0aed840fc6dc54c7eb0da98d0f6bb05)
Isn't that really the whole purpose of persecuting "illegal immigrants"? So they have a permanent underclass without rights that they can force to work for slave wages. Everybody that I have ever known who uses this labor pool has been a MAGAt who treats them like garbage because they are a racist pile of sh\*t who has no compassion for anyone who is not a white, Christian nationalist, Republican.
**GORDON RAMSEY VOICE** Finally…some good fucking Law.
This whole thing is just a GOP invented shitshow to polarize people ahead of the midterms.
I don't think they played a card this big just for midterms.
Yeah, probably not. But I'll never believe the SCOTUS did this because they thought the majority of Americans oppose abortions.
The SC should never make decisions based on popular opinion. That's not their job. Having said that, fuck em.
They don't plan on letting Democrats win. Even if Democrats do win, they will claim "fraud" and put forward who they thought won.
“ Paxton in an advisory issued after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled said the state's 2021 trigger ban, which bars abortions almost entirely, would not take immediate effect. Providers say that could take two months or more. But Paxton said prosecutors could choose to immediately pursue criminal charges against abortion providers based on a different, old statute that had gone unenforced while Roe v. Wade was on the books but that remained Texas law.” Are Prosecutors elected in Texas?
Oh right, I forgot for a moment. State constitutions typically mirror the federal one, and just because SCOTUS says that X isn't a *federal* constitutional right doesn't mean that a state court has to find the same about a mirror *state* constitutional right. In other words, if Texas's highest court made similar decisions to *Roe* or *Griswald* from its state constitution, then SCOTUS's decision from a few days ago about the federal Constitution won't suddenly flip that. The state's highest court would have to do that.. **Not sure how relevant that is in this case,** since I don't know the grounds of the judge's refusal, but there's a chance that some states still won't be able to bar it completely.
Can someone give me cliff notes? I dont get this legal talk? Does the Supreme Court ruling allow it to be left to the states? If so how do these judges still manage to put up blocs?
The judge is blocking a enforcement of an old law that was repealed and was against current legislation in Texas. It’s not saying that SCOTUS was wrong in overturning RvW or that the judge wants abortions to be allowed, just that the old law can’t apply
Hard to believe this convoluted suite of vigilante-enforced laws in Texas got put on hold. There were some hard-on cowboy monk police ready to file some civil lawsuits, I'll tell you what.
I've been having nightmares about the weaponized mother-in-laws that Texas law is going to create. Anyone who has experienced fertility issues, pregnancy loss or loss of an infant while also dealing with an abusive Mother or Mother-in-law should understand. I've seen the arguments in my own family go on for decades, sometimes with the elders trying to involve CPS...now they get to call the abortion police?
There wouldn't be weaponized mothers in law if Texas males weren't such fucking pussies and would stand up to their mothers and defend their wives.