Land of the free

What is happening to the USA - Texas now passed anti abortion laws and the Supreme Court has up held it. Why are people allowing this, are the majority in favour of these laws, women as well?
I find it amazing that a country we have upheld as the land of the free, the land of opportunity is seemingly going in this direction, other states have passed laws too I believe.
If you want to prevent abortions surely the male half of the population should be more careful who they impregnate.
Keep going like this and Gilead will be a reality, are your legislators taking lessons from ISIS and the Taliban.

Vintage wrote:What is happening to the USA - Texas now passed anti abortion laws and the Supreme Court has up held it. Why are people allowing this, are the majority  in favour of these laws, women as well?
I find it amazing that a country we have upheld as the land of the free, the land of opportunity is seemingly going in this direction, other states have passed laws too I believe.
If you want to prevent abortions surely the male half of the population should be more careful who they impregnate.
Keep going like this and Gilead will be a reality, are your legislators taking lessons from ISIS and the Taliban.

In Texas it's pretty.close to 50-50 in terms of support for these laws by women..

The reason the Supremes allowed this is because abortion isn't covered in the constitution and they rightfully said its not our problem.

I think the reason these folks get elected is because abortion isn't really that high on the list of voters issues..

Personally I have voted for pro choice and pro life folks because it's their other positions that I pay more attention to.

Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

Vintage wrote:Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

It might be serious, but we have state governments that are given the responsibility to deal with that. At least in this case.

Pro life people don't look at it as a bodily function. They see two lives, two citizens and believe the rights of one don't supercede the other. Pregnancy is a unique bodily function as it creates a new human. The fight always ends up being about when that human, entity or whatever you want to call it, has rights.

Making things more complicated is the fact that the unborn are given rights everywhere.

I'm a very tepid pro choicer but I understand the pro life argument. Abortion isn't like having a mole removed.

Maddog wrote:

Vintage wrote:Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

It might be serious, but we have state governments that are given the responsibility to deal with that. At least in this case.

Pro life people don't look at it as a bodily function. They see two lives, two citizens and believe the rights of one don't supercede the other.  Pregnancy is a unique bodily function as it creates a new human. The fight always ends up being about when that human, entity or whatever you want to call it, has rights.

Making things more complicated is the fact that the unborn are given rights everywhere.

I'm a very tepid pro choicer but I understand the pro life argument.  Abortion isn't like having a mole removed.

I agree with your last statements, to a point, however why should a living human be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy especially by rape or manipulation by an individual, family or state? Because its a unique body function it doesn't make it or shouldn't make it a public/state possession.
There needs to be rules but I don't think many women use it as a form of contraception as many say. We need to teach men and women to have more responsibility in procreating and males to be especially careful who they carelessly impregnate.
Could the next law passed be like Turkey is thinking about - being forced to marry your rapist.
My goodness United States where are you going?

Vintage wrote:Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

America is very short-term in its political thinking. People don't explore the consequences; they only feel the grunt urges, and react.

We've just seen the full run of this in the Afghanistan war: 9/11 happens, and people want revenge; 20-years later, they suffer the hardships of disengaging. Grunt urges. No foresight.

As far as abortion is concerned, people either believe in prenatal life, or they don't. It's a metaphysical - almost religious - decision. Those who do believe in prenatal life, feel abortion is a life or death decision. Those who do not, feel it's simply a clinical procedure - like excising a skin lesion. Once one makes that decision, only passion follows.

I can't imagine someone thinking its just a medical procedure I'm sure many do though which is perhaps the problem.
It seems to be something most people always remember but still believe it was a necessary thing.
The same people who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth seem to have no compunction taking the child away from the mother never to be seen again - possibly a worse fate for all.
Rich families will still be able to sort out their daughters 'gynaecological' problems just as they have done for many years in this country as well before the law was changed as usual it'll be the poorer classes dying from backstreet abortions and paying a lot of money to do so..

Vintage wrote:The same people who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth seem to have no compunction taking the child away from the mother never to be seen again - possibly a worse fate for all.

And, the same people "who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth" are typically the people who oppose food stamps and subsidized housing. So they believe in the inviolable right to life, but not the inviolable right to sustaining life. Odd.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:The same people who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth seem to have no compunction taking the child away from the mother never to be seen again - possibly a worse fate for all.

And, the same people "who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth" are typically the people who oppose food stamps and subsidized housing.  So they believe in the inviolable right to life, but not the inviolable right to sustaining life.  Odd.

Yes, They never have an interest in supporting the child and/or the mother once its born.

Vintage wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And, the same people "who believed a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth" are typically the people who oppose food stamps and subsidized housing.  So they believe in the inviolable right to life, but not the inviolable right to sustaining life.  Odd.

Yes, They never have an interest in supporting the child and/or the mother once its born.

I wouldn't say that. I know plenty of pro life folks who are far more active than pro choice people in donating time and money to causes that support and help children.

Never saw much of that other than mother and baby units and they proved to be uncaring for the most part. Children sold to the US others shipped off to farm schools and religious organisations.
A good few of those have spoken up about their experiences over the years.

Vintage wrote:Never saw much of that other than mother and baby units and they proved to be uncaring for the most part. Children sold to the US others shipped off to farm schools and religious organisations.
A good few of those have spoken up about their experiences over the years.

I guess you have to know where to look.

I think it’s mainly, in part, due to how religious the US is, I was just saying this to Ben tonight. In the UK we aren’t anywhere nearly as religious as the US (thank goodness), it’s almost unheard of to come across really religious people here.

It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

Ben Reilly wrote:It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

Meanwhile Texan women everywhere go underground to get back-street abortions....

Is contraception free in Texas? Should be if they want to prevent unwanted babies

eddie wrote:I think it’s mainly, in part, due to how religious the US is, I was just saying this to Ben tonight. In the UK we aren’t anywhere nearly as religious as the US (thank goodness), it’s almost unheard of to come across really religious people here.

I really don't think people outside the U.S. realise how fanatically religious many right-wing Americans are. For example ...

Last October, before the presidential election, I asked what should have been an obvious troll question on Quora:

Can people who vote for Joe Biden get into Heaven when they die?

Everyone who answered my question took it seriously, they did not laugh at me or mock me. This was a serious question in the minds of millions of Americans, for many different reasons.

How about this troll statement?

I just don't see how a Democrat could say that he was a Christian or a good person.

This was something I found out a so-called friend said about me behind my back about 10-15 years ago.

Quite a lot of people in the UK are still religious they just don't display it in a blast and ram it into others faces they just go about things quietly, not just Anglicans and Jews but lots of others too.
All through the pandemic British Christians, Jews, Hindus etc helped a lot of people not necessarily of their particular faith or any faith.

Vintage wrote:Quite a lot of people in the UK are still religious they just don't display it in a blast and ram it into others faces they just go about things quietly, not just Anglicans and Jews but lots of others too.
All through the pandemic British Christians, Jews, Hindus etc helped a lot of people not necessarily of their particular faith or any faith.

You’re missing the point. In America, religion is ALL. Over here here, it’s just quieter and less needed or built into us

Maddog wrote:

Vintage wrote:


Yes, They never have an interest in supporting the child and/or the mother once its born.

I wouldn't say that. I know plenty of pro life folks who are far more active than pro choice people in donating time and money to causes that support and help children.

Charity is sketchy and unreliable...here today, gone tomorrow. The Red Cross does not provide food stamps. I mean taxes.

Most pro life folks are gung ho on creating a life, but lose interest when it comes to assuming responsibility for their convictions. If they're going to pass laws, they should simultaneously pass measures delivering financial means for the consequences. One can't have something for nothing.

They should put their money where their mouth is.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

Meanwhile Texan women everywhere go underground to get back-street abortions....

Is contraception free in Texas?  Should be if they want to prevent unwanted babies

If you ever come back to Texas, have Ben drive you to the border of Louisiana or Oklahoma. What you will se about 27 feet past the border will be a casino (because we are more moral here and don't do that kind of gambling ) . I imagine some enterprising folks will set up abortion clinics in the same manner.

There will always be places to get abortions in the US. Some women may have to travel to get one. I don't see back street clinics being an issue.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I wouldn't say that. I know plenty of pro life folks who are far more active than pro choice people in donating time and money to causes that support and help children.

Charity is sketchy and unreliable...here today, gone tomorrow.  The Red Cross does not provide food stamps.  I mean taxes.

Most pro life folks are gung ho on creating a life, but lose interest when it comes to assuming responsibility for their convictions.  If they're going to pass laws, they should simultaneously pass measures delivering financial means for the consequences.  One can't have something for nothing.

They should put their money where their mouth is.

No, but food banks provide food.

Helping your fellow man is important, and it requires doing more than just paying your taxes.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Charity is sketchy and unreliable...here today, gone tomorrow.  The Red Cross does not provide food stamps.  I mean taxes.

Most pro life folks are gung ho on creating a life, but lose interest when it comes to assuming responsibility for their convictions.  If they're going to pass laws, they should simultaneously pass measures delivering financial means for the consequences.  One can't have something for nothing.

They should put their money where their mouth is.

No, but food banks provide food.

Helping your fellow man is important, and it requires doing more than just paying your taxes.  

Food banks go out of business. Enthusiasm for helping your fellow man wanes. They are beneficial to the spiritual side of life, but only lawful taxes have the constancy of real commitment.

I say, if we need a law to assure life, then we need taxes to pay for it.

Vintage wrote:Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

Bodily functions?



if abortion is unavailable in Texas it surely gives women more power over themselves to make their own wise choices.


want a baby? try for one via lots of unprotected sex

definitely don't want a baby? use protections against it


surely more empowering than fucking up and having to ''get rid of your own mistake''

It should always be a womans right to choose.
The law should set a time limit....3 months perhaps, by which time the majority of women know they are pregnant and have time to decide.
Obviously every case after 3 months should be handled individually.

I doubt whether many women use abortion as an alternative method for birth control.
It's far to an emotional issue to be taken lightly.

gelico wrote:

Vintage wrote:Isn't something that takes control of the bodily functions of half the population and which could result in deaths of otherwise healthy women, serious enough to take into account?
If there was some way to take control, in law of certain functions of the male body, say forced vasectomies to control the population, would that be enough to take into account?

Bodily functions?



if abortion is unavailable in Texas it surely gives women more power over themselves to make their own wise choices.  


want a baby?  try for one via lots of  unprotected sex



definitely don't want a baby?  use protections against it


surely more empowering than fucking up and having to ''get rid of your own mistake''

So if a woman is coerced in some way or raped she is at fault and must pay?
I agree any sexually active woman should make sure a baby is a wanted baby but just as importantly each baby a man fathers should be wanted by him. Doesn't always work out like that though.

Vintage wrote:

gelico wrote:


Bodily functions?



if abortion is unavailable in Texas it surely gives women more power over themselves to make their own wise choices.  


want a baby?  try for one via lots of  unprotected sex



definitely don't want a baby?  use protections against it


surely more empowering than fucking up and having to ''get rid of your own mistake''

So if a woman is coerced in some way or raped she is at fault and must pay?
I agree any sexually active woman should make sure a baby is a wanted baby but just as importantly each baby a man father's should be wanted by him. Doesn't always work out like that though.

perhaps they will put something in place for such cases as the result of a rape or fleeing domestic violence.

Syl wrote: It should always be a womans right to choose.
The law should set a time limit....3 months perhaps, by which time the majority of women know they are pregnant and have time to decide.
Obviously every case after 3 months should be handled individually.

I doubt whether many women use abortion as an alternative method for birth control.
It's far to an emotional issue to be taken lightly.

Unfortunately, when it's compared to lancing a boil, it's not much of an emotional issue for many women. In fact it's something to be celebrated. That's why I am pro choice, but think many in the movement are just nasty and vile.

Shout Your Abortion is a collection of photos, essays, and creative work inspired by the movement of the same name, a template for building new communities of healing, and a call to action. Since SYA’s inception, people all over the country begun sharing stories and organizing in a range of ways: making art, hosting comedy shows, creating abortion-positive clothing, altering billboards, and starting conversations that had never happened before. This book documents some of these projects and individuals who have breathed life into this movement, illustrating the profound liberatory and political power of defying shame and claiming sole authorship of our experiences. With Roe vs. Wade on the brink of reversal, the act of shouting ones’ abortion has become explicitly radical, and Shout Your Abortion is needed more urgently than ever before.

^This book / movement is what I'm talking about. An abortion is now something to be treated like a baby shower for many. .

Gelico wrote:if abortion is unavailable in Texas it surely gives women more power over themselves to make their own wise choices.

Mind over matter? Will-an-abortion?

Why didn't we think of that?

Vintage wrote:I agree any sexually active woman should make sure a baby is a wanted baby but just as importantly each baby a man fathers should be wanted by him. Doesn't always work out like that though.

Far too little emphasis is paid to orienting men toward pregnancy. If, every time a man has sex, he reminds himself that he is just as likely creating a son or daughter, he would probably rethink his options.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:I agree any sexually active woman should make sure a baby is a wanted baby but just as importantly each baby a man fathers should be wanted by him. Doesn't always work out like that though.

Far too little emphasis is paid to orienting men toward pregnancy.  If, every time a man has sex, he reminds himself that he is just as likely creating a son or daughter, he would probably rethink his options.

I am not for going back in time, but decades ago, pre pill, men did take more responsibility.
I grew up in a city, and even there it was a scandal if a woman became pregnant before marriage. Often times a marriage was quickly arranged, in which case the talk was kept behind closed doors.
There were very few single mothers, and the ones who were had probably lost their husbands in WW2.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote: It should always be a womans right to choose.
The law should set a time limit....3 months perhaps, by which time the majority of women know they are pregnant and have time to decide.
Obviously every case after 3 months should be handled individually.

I doubt whether many women use abortion as an alternative method for birth control.
It's far to an emotional issue to be taken lightly.

Unfortunately, when it's compared to lancing a boil, it's not much of an emotional issue for many women. In fact it's something to be celebrated. That's why I am pro choice, but think many in the movement are just nasty and vile.  

I can't believe many women take abortion so lightly.
If they do, education has to be the key....no one should use abortion as a method of birth control.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Far too little emphasis is paid to orienting men toward pregnancy.  If, every time a man has sex, he reminds himself that he is just as likely creating a son or daughter, he would probably rethink his options.

I am not for going back in time, but decades ago, pre pill, men did take more responsibility.
I grew up in a city, and even there it was a scandal if a woman became pregnant before marriage. Often times a marriage was quickly arranged, in which case the talk was kept behind closed doors.
There were very few single mothers, and the ones who were had probably lost their husbands in WW2.

In a way they still do. Plenty of abortions are paid for by men. Plenty of men want their women to have an abortion, but the women choose not too.

In the US anyway, there is very little difference between the genders in how abortion is perceived. From a political perspective, its the one thing men and women agree on in the same numbers.

There is talk in Washington, about deputizing physicians who perform abortions in Texas as US Marshalls.  Then they would have qualified immunity, making it impossible to prosecute them under the new Texas law.

It's a way around the new Texas law.  It's a McConnell-like move, but it does seem this is the new way of politics.  Fight fire with fire.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

Meanwhile Texan women everywhere go underground to get back-street abortions....

Is contraception free in Texas?  Should be if they want to prevent unwanted babies

If you ever come back to Texas, have Ben drive you to the border of Louisiana or Oklahoma. What you will se about 27 feet past the border will be a casino (because we are more moral here and don't do that kind of gambling ) . I imagine some enterprising folks will set up abortion clinics in the same manner.

There will always be places to get abortions in the US. Some women may have to travel to get one. I don't see back street clinics being an issue.

That works okay if you live in Denton -- not so much if you live in Brownsville.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If you ever come back to Texas, have Ben drive you to the border of Louisiana or Oklahoma. What you will se about 27 feet past the border will be a casino (because we are more moral here and don't do that kind of gambling ) . I imagine some enterprising folks will set up abortion clinics in the same manner.

There will always be places to get abortions in the US. Some women may have to travel to get one. I don't see back street clinics being an issue.

That works okay if you live in Denton -- not so much if you live in Brownsville.

Viva la Mexico.

¡Viva México!  A nation needs no article, unless using it in a sentence.

The most interesting thing about this case so far, is the Supreme Court has used the shadow docket to leave standing a law that clearly contravenes decades of precedent.  It came up on emergency appeal of a stay order, and the S.Ct. simply denied without opinion.  That's borderline dishonest, given the importance of the issue.

It looks like we may be facing the issue of packing of the court sooner rather than later. I don't mind...confirmations have already been manipulated by McConnell. No different than enlarging the court, and appointments being made by a Democrat.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If you ever come back to Texas, have Ben drive you to the border of Louisiana or Oklahoma. What you will se about 27 feet past the border will be a casino (because we are more moral here and don't do that kind of gambling ) . I imagine some enterprising folks will set up abortion clinics in the same manner.

There will always be places to get abortions in the US. Some women may have to travel to get one. I don't see back street clinics being an issue.

That works okay if you live in Denton -- not so much if you live in Brownsville.

Viva la Mexico.

Yeah, if you've got a passport, if you trust the Mexican health care system, and if you don't mind leeching off it.

Nah, Mexico looks a bit grubby to me.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Viva la Mexico.

Yeah, if you've got a passport, if you trust the Mexican health care system, and if you don't mind leeching off it.

There's a lot of folks that cross the border for cheaper health care (and a lot of things) . I don't think I would recommend it though.

I don't think Americans leech off the system. Mexico just has cheap care and Americans pay those cheap prices.

The passport would be the issue. If you don't have one it can take months to get one.


Anyway, I read an article the other day where neighboring states are getting flooded with questions about abortions.

Ben Reilly wrote:It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

The Texas law is written to avoid 'state action', by encouraging private citizens to step into the breach and become the plaintiffs.  The claim of unconstitutional is only imposed upon actions of governments, called 'state action'.  If a state can avoid a finding of state action, it can avoid the unconstitutional label.  By creating a private citizen's cause of action in civil courts, the law doesn’t require Texas to enforce it, but encourages citizens to become bounty hunters.  Thus, Texas avoids government involvement, and presumably - the reasoning goes - the law must not be unconstitutional.

If a state can avoid involving itself in this way, simultaneously prohibiting things protected by the Constitution, it lays open immense opportunities for progressive law makers.  For example, a liberal-minded state could create a private cause of action against gun owners, who are now protected by the 2nd Amendment, authorizing private damages of, say, $20,000 for possession of a firearm.

Hey…it’s not the government, but a private cause of action, brought by a private citizen!  Leave [insert name of state] out of it…it’s a private matter.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's outrageous that the government should exercise so much control over a person's body as to actually force them to give birth when they don't want to.

The Texas law is written to avoid 'state action', by encouraging private citizens to step into the breach and become the plaintiffs.  The claim of unconstitutional is only imposed upon actions of governments, called 'state action'.  If a state can avoid a finding of state action, it can avoid the unconstitutional label.  By creating a private citizen's cause of action in civil courts, the law doesn’t require Texas to enforce it, but encourages citizens to become bounty hunters.  Thus, Texas avoids government involvement, and presumably - the reasoning goes - the law must not be unconstitutional.

If a state can avoid involving itself in this way, simultaneously prohibiting things protected by the Constitution, it lays open immense opportunities for progressive law makers.  For example, a liberal-minded state could create a private cause of action against gun owners, who are now protected by the 2nd Amendment, authorizing private damages of, say, $20,000 for possession of a firearm.

Hey…it’s not the government, but a private cause of action, brought by a private citizen!  Leave [insert name of state] out of it…it’s a private matter.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

^This is exactly why conservatives are stupid to open this can of worms.

Hopefully, someone with standing, gets before the Supremes and they throw this out.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Texas law is written to avoid 'state action', by encouraging private citizens to step into the breach and become the plaintiffs.  The claim of unconstitutional is only imposed upon actions of governments, called 'state action'.  If a state can avoid a finding of state action, it can avoid the unconstitutional label.  By creating a private citizen's cause of action in civil courts, the law doesn’t require Texas to enforce it, but encourages citizens to become bounty hunters.  Thus, Texas avoids government involvement, and presumably - the reasoning goes - the law must not be unconstitutional.

If a state can avoid involving itself in this way, simultaneously prohibiting things protected by the Constitution, it lays open immense opportunities for progressive law makers.  For example, a liberal-minded state could create a private cause of action against gun owners, who are now protected by the 2nd Amendment, authorizing private damages of, say, $20,000 for possession of a firearm.

Hey…it’s not the government, but a private cause of action, brought by a private citizen!  Leave [insert name of state] out of it…it’s a private matter.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

^This is exactly why conservatives are stupid to open this can of worms.

Hopefully, someone with standing, gets before the Supremes and they throw this out.

The US Supreme Court has already relied on this argument. In its opinion on a petition for relief by abortion providers, the majority acknowledged the abortion providers "have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," but said the request to the court presents "complex and novel" procedural questions that prevented them from meeting their burden.

Among those "complex and novel" questions is, whether the proper party - the State of Texas - is before the court.  So the avoidance by private action has already been codified in law.  It is now precedent.

We now need to have a go at guns.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

^This is exactly why conservatives are stupid to open this can of worms.

Hopefully, someone with standing, gets before the Supremes and they throw this out.

The US Supreme Court has already relied on this argument. In its opinion on a petition for relief by abortion providers, the majority acknowledged the abortion providers "have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," but said the request to the court presents "complex and novel" procedural questions that prevented them from meeting their burden.

Among those "complex and novel" questions is, whether the proper party - the State of Texas - is before the court.  So the avoidance by private action has already been codified in law.  It is now precedent.

We now need to have a go at guns.

From NPR.......

"The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.

The opinion was unsigned. It said the abortion providers didn't properly address "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" in their case.

"In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit," the decision said. "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts." "

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The US Supreme Court has already relied on this argument. In its opinion on a petition for relief by abortion providers, the majority acknowledged the abortion providers "have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," but said the request to the court presents "complex and novel" procedural questions that prevented them from meeting their burden.

Among those "complex and novel" questions is, whether the proper party - the State of Texas - is before the court. So the avoidance by private action has already been codified in law. It is now precedent.

We now need to have a go at guns.

From NPR.......

"The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.

The opinion was unsigned. It said the abortion providers didn't properly address "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" in their case.

"In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit," the decision said. "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts." "

I can see what is wrong. A necessary party is missing: the State of Texas. The State engineered all of this, so the Court wants to see them represented before them.

Still, the Court could still freeze the proceedings, whomever was at bar. The Court could have enjoined the remedial part, and sent a signal out to all would-be claimants that they can't collect. The Court decided to make the game more difficult by forcing plaintiffs to find a way to bring in the State.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

From NPR.......

"The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.

The opinion was unsigned. It said the abortion providers didn't properly address "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" in their case.

"In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit," the decision said. "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts." "

I can see what is wrong.  A necessary party is missing: the State of Texas.  The State engineered all of this, so the Court wants to see them represented before them.

Still, the Court could still freeze the proceedings, whomever was at bar.  The Court could have enjoined the remedial part, and sent a signal out to all would-be claimants that they can't collect.  The Court decided to make the game more difficult by forcing plaintiffs to find a way to bring in the State.

They need a party with standing. Another Roe, Brown or Heller.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I can see what is wrong.  A necessary party is missing: the State of Texas.  The State engineered all of this, so the Court wants to see them represented before them.

Still, the Court could still freeze the proceedings, whomever was at bar.  The Court could have enjoined the remedial part, and sent a signal out to all would-be claimants that they can't collect.  The Court decided to make the game more difficult by forcing plaintiffs to find a way to bring in the State.

They need a party with standing. Another Roe, Brown or Heller.

Kind of...they need a party with the correct standing.  Whole Woman's Health v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, does not bring a real case or controversy before the Court, nor the real party-in-interest before the Court: the State of Texas in its capacity to create and authorize the law. There are lots of officers, including the Texas Attorney General. But what the Court is looking for is to see the law in operation, as it operates, and the damages it creates.  This case is not an example of the kind of case complained of, nor does it frame the State of Texas as doing the action complained of.

The Court has bought into the dodge, for this the preliminary hearing. It may be - in fact, probably is the case - that the case was intended to create a chill effect, and not the actual harm threatened. That is, the law just by being on the books, has the effect of forcing closure of abortion clinics, as the personnel do not want to even face exposure to the consequences of the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect Who wants to pay a lawyer to be on permanent staff?

If so, by refusing to take on the 'chill effect' case, the Supreme Court is playing into the State's hands. We may have to increase the size of the Supreme Court, while we have a Democratic President and Senate, for appointment and confirmation, just for the abortion issue.