Texas

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I think I just thought of the reason for this draconian action of these states at this point in time. Its rather simple. The Supreme Court has the judges necessary to overturn. White Women don't elect these Judges. My thinking about the Supreme Court changed when they decided an election.--Gore vs Bush. We should have counted those ballets for as long as it took. The Supreme Court and Scalia usurped our votes., and from there I feel we have gone downhill.

I am honestly afraid we haven't just lost a battle but have lost the war. I don't know if we can turn it back. The ideology of the country has changed. We don't have the same values.

I am not accepting blame. Annette

 

[Calliecake]

@smitcompton, Judges are initially chosen in partisan elections in the state we live in. I’m ashamed to admit that I wasn’t even aware of this until a few elections ago. I made several phone calls trying to find out what political party each person on the ballot running for judge was affiliated with. Some offices had no problem giving this information out, others flat out refused to answer. I’m sure you can guess the ones who flat out refused. I had to call Springfield. If I’m remembering correctly they couldn’t give me a definite answer but it wasn’t difficult to decipher. I did this with the sole purpose of Roe vs Wade in mind.

I wish I could say more Annette but I don’t want to break any PS rules.

I agree with your comment about our values have changed. Thirty years ago I would never have believed guns would be more important than children, yet here we are.

 

[Lookinagain]

It's strange, but many of the states that elect their judges say it is done in "non-partisan" elections. My state doesn't elect judges, but if it did, I'd certainly want to know what their party affiliation was.

 

[missy]

NJ Abortion Law Passed Legislature
“
NJ Abortions Now Protected By Law; Activists Seek Accessibility
Monday, the New Jersey state legislature signed into law a bill protecting women's rights to have an abortion.

Michelle Rotuno-Johnson's profile picture
Michelle Rotuno-Johnson,
Patch Staff
Verified Patch Staff Badge
Posted Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:57 am ET


Monday, the New Jersey state legislature signed into law a bill protecting women's rights to have an abortion; activists say the bill does not go far enough to make abortions accessible to all. (Google Images)
NEW JERSEY — On Monday, the New Jersey state legislature signed into law a bill protecting women's rights to have an abortion; but activists say the bill does not go far enough to make abortions accessible to all.


The state law would ensure access to abortions even if a future Supreme Court decision strikes down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The bill passed the Senate 23-15 and passed the Assembly 46-22, with 8 assembly members not voting.

The Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, bill S49, does not require insurance providers to cover the medical procedure, as WHYY reported.

Find out what's happening in Middletown with free, real-time updates from Patch.
Let's go!
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is calling on legislators to reduce out-of-pocket costs for abortions. Policy Director Sarah Fajardo said in a statement that the bill is an important step, but added access to abortions is also critical.

"The bill takes the important step of affirming New Jerseyans’ legal protections for the right to an abortion and reproductive autonomy – but at a time when reproductive freedom is on the line, we need to guarantee that abortion is not just legal, but accessible," Fajardo said. "To meaningfully protect the right to abortion and ensure equitable access, we must go beyond the status quo and guarantee that abortion is affordable for all New Jerseyans, regardless of insurance access, immigration status, or income. Without addressing the systemic barriers rooted in white supremacy and xenophobia that keep essential health care out of reach for so many, the right to an abortion remains one that many New Jerseyans struggle to access.”


Groups such as New Jersey Right to Life and Democrats For Life America have opposed the bill.


“

 

[missy]

FROM JAMA

January 28, 2022

Supreme Court Ruling on the Texas Abortion LawBeginning to Unravel Roe v Wade​

I. Glenn Cohen, JD1; Rebecca B. Reingold, JD2; Lawrence O. Gostin, JD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. Published online January 28, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.0050


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2774731
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784582
In 2021, Texas enacted an abortion statute, SB8, stating “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child.”1 SB8’s prohibition applies broadly against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.”1 The design of this law is unprecedented, enforced solely by private lawsuits, providing damages of $10 000 or more for each abortion. SB8 prohibits government enforcement, with the explicit intent of preventing federal judicial review. SB8 clearly violates current Supreme Court precedent creating a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability.2

SB8 Is Designed to Evade Constitutional Review
Private litigants and the Justice Department launched a series of lawsuits in federal court to enjoin the law.3 On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court, 8-1, in a fractured set of opinions, ruled that clinicians who perform abortions, clinics, and organizations that support abortion may seek to enjoin a narrow group of government officials and employees, but the justices ruled against Justice Department litigation.3 Pending lower court decisions, the Court let SB8 stand despite the clear fact it violates Roe v Wade.
What seems like a narrow victory for clinicians and abortion clinics, however, may prove ineffectual; abortion will likely remain essentially unavailable to women in Texas. The key to understanding why, is the way the 8 justices split in their reasoning. Instead of permitting a lawsuit against the Texas attorney general and court clerks, the majority permitted the case to go forward only against “executive licensing officials,” who may take enforcement actions against those who violate Texas’ Health and Safety Code.3
These fine distinctions matter for the future enforcement of SB8 in Texas. There remains doubt whether executive licensing officials are necessary to enforce SB8. If the Texas Supreme Court concludes that licensing officials have no enforcement authority, there would be no one to enjoin.
Even if licensing officials are found to administer SB8, any injunction may be limited to their licensing duties. This suggests an injunction may only prohibit officials from stripping a physician or facility of licensure, not against private plaintiffs threatening clinicians, abortion clinics, or others with money damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. It also suggests that Texas (or another state copying the approach taken in SB could close even this small loophole by specifying that licensing officials have no role in administering SB8.
All of this would have been avoided had the views of 4 justices prevailed that the Texas attorney general and court clerks were proper defendants.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 17, the Fifth Circuit, at the urging of the State of Texas, referred the case to the Texas Supreme Court to decide the role of executive licensing officials under Texas law. Abortion providers asked the US Supreme Court to block the Fifth Circuit's decision, but on January 20, 2022, the Court refused to act. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, authored a blistering dissent lamenting this as “a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies.” The Texas Supreme Court could effectively end legal challenges, permitting SB8 to survive.
Even if the case is returned eventually to the district court, the US Supreme Court’s decision will severely limit the scope of who courts may enjoin. While the district court can try to creatively fashion a remedy, it will likely be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is highly conservative.
Clinicians and clinics can continue to challenge SB8 in the Texas court system, which may hear both state and federal law challenges. Indeed, in Van Stean v Texas Right to Life, a Texas state trial judge ruled that the enforcement mechanism in SB8 violated the Texas Constitution’s “open courts” provision and its ban on delegations of enforcement authority. The trial court also ruled that the $10 000 civil penalty constitutes a punishment without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.4 The court did not, however, enjoin the law, and its decision may be overturned on appeal.
The litigation thus far has applied to preenforcement review. In a lawsuit commenced against clinicians and abortion clinics, they could argue that SB8 violates the federal constitution. That defense, however, may be substantially weakened if the Supreme Court upholds a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Court is expected to rule in this case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in June 2022.5 During oral arguments, most justices seemed prepared to uphold the law, either by changing Roe’s viability standard or even overturning the landmark case.
Given these realities, Texas abortion clinics are unlikely to resume their activities anytime soon, given concerns about the financial and reputational risks of being sued under SB8.6 Some clinics may close permanently because of the limited number of abortions they can perform; only a small percentage of abortions occur in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion will remain inaccessible for women in Texas who do not have the resources to travel to other states for services, many of whom are poor, young, undocumented, or uninsured women.2 The inability of some women to access safe abortion services will continue to jeopardize their health, well-being, and dignity.
The Future of Roe v Wade
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, 18 states will immediately prohibit all abortions. These states have laws that automatically reinstate pre-Roe abortion bans or limit abortions to the extent the Supreme Court permits.7 The laws in 16 states that have established gestational limits at various points previability (ranging from 6 to 22 weeks) would also be constitutional.8 Even if the Court adopts a new standard to evaluate the permissibility of previability abortion bans, such as an earlier gestational cutoff previability, many fetal heartbeat laws could also survive constitutional scrutiny.
Either way, the effect on abortion access will be significant. Other states will likely pass laws that prohibit previability abortions.7 Previability abortion bans will likely intersect with numerous additional abortion restrictions that currently exist. In 2021 alone, 19 states passed more than 100 abortion restrictions—the highest in any year since 19739 (the eTable in the Supplement provides a summary of state abortion restrictions).
What Other Rights Are at Stake?
The Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Texas abortion law has major implications far beyond abortion. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the clear purpose and actual effect of SB8 has been to nullify this Court’s ruling” and “The role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system is at stake.”3 What Texas did to evade constitutional review of abortion restrictions other states could use to evade other constitutional rights. Indeed, the day after Whole Women’s Health v Jackson, Governor Newsom said California would pursue a similar scheme for “ghost guns and assault weapons”—in seeking to avoid Second Amendment scrutiny.2,10 A deep problem with the Supreme Court’s decision is that it might invite states to sidestep the Court’s authority altogether.
Back to top
Article Information
Corresponding Author: Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 500 First St NW, Office 810, Washington, DC 20001 ([email protected]).
Published Online: January 28, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.0050
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
References
1.
An Act relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. SB8 (Tex 2021). May 19, 2021. Accessed December 11, 2021. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021
2.
Cohen IG, Adashi EY, Gostin LO. The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB, and the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade? JAMA. 2021;326(15):1473-1474. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.17639
ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Whole Women’s Health v Jackson, 595 US___ (2021). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
4.
Van Stean v Texas Right to Life, D–1–GN–21–004179 (Dist Ct Travis Cty Tex) (2021).
5.
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health. No. 19-1392, Brief for petitioners. Accessed January 24, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...ization/d59fcfd4-b8ec-42a8-b8e1-e54755fbd4f6/
6.
Abrams A. Inside the small group of doctors who risked everything to provide abortions in Texas. Time. October 14, 2021. https://time.com/6106537/texas-doctors-performing-abortions-ban-halted/
7.
Sobel L, Ramaswamy A, Salganicoff A. Abortion at SCOTUS: Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health. KFF. November 2, 2021. Accessed January 1, 2022. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-p...tion-at-scotus-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health/
8.
Guttmacher Institute. United States: abortion: state policies on abortion. Accessed January 1, 2022. https://perma.cc/AJC9-AGGY
9.
Nash E. For the first time ever, U.S. states enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in a single year. Guttmacher Institute. October 4, 2021. Accessed January 1, 2022. https://perma.cc/95JZ-LX92
10.
Hubler S. Newsom calls for gun legislation modeled on the Texas abortion law. New York Times. December 12, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/us/politics/newsom-texas-abortion-law-guns.html

 

[AGBF]

@smitcompton, Judges are initially chosen in partisan elections in the state we live in.

...​

I wish I could say more Annette but I don’t want to break any PS rules.

I agree with your comment about our values have changed. Thirty years ago I would never have believed guns would be more important than children, yet here we are.

I'm glad some of you have figured out how to talk to each other about things like abortion here. I just shut up.

 

[missy]

I cannot believe this is happening in 2022. I do feel like we are in the twilight zone. And not in a good way.

 

[Mreader]

I cannot believe this is happening in 2022. I do feel like we are in the twilight zone. And not in a good way.

Since 2016 I’ve been saying that we’ve been living in the Upside Down (Stranger Things reference).

 

[missy]

Since 2016 I’ve been saying that we’ve been living in the Upside Down (Stranger Things reference).

I’ve been saying my arms are tired from holding up this sign since the 1960s!!!

 

[Mreader]

I’ve been saying my arms are tired from holding up this sign since the 1960s!!!

Totally. But 2016 became a new level of crazy.

 

[Calliecake]

...​

I'm glad some of you have figured out how to talk to each other about things like abortion here. I just shut up.

You are missed here @AGBF.

We are on a diamond forum where the majority of people are women. it’s ridiculous that we are not able to discuss what should be a woman’s choice to decide what is best for her concerning her own body.