Texas

[Bonfire]

Vigilante legislation. Can you imagine if there were a Texas law outsourcing the law enforcement of robbery or murder to citizens and giving them a bounty to do so? That is why we have a criminal justice system for f’s sake, It’s a job of the state.

 

[mrs-b]

Even given the current make-up, I was anti expanding the Supreme Court. Yeah, not any more.

 

[Matata]

Senate Democrats will soon hold a hearing examining this week’s emergency Supreme Court ruling that declined to block an extreme anti-abortion law in Texas.

The hearing, to be conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks, will probe the so-called “shadow docket” of emergency appeals the Supreme Court has relied on with increasing frequency to issue rulings, often of massive consequence, with little public deliberation or notice. An analysis conducted by Reuters found that the court’s emergency appeals rulings over the past year often favored religious groups and Donald Trump’s administration.

The unsigned 5-4 ruling permitting Texas’ new abortion restrictions to go into effect was handed down shortly after midnight on Wednesday. It offered no extended reasoning for the decision; its length was only a few paragraphs. The court also held no public arguments on the matter, as it typically does for most cases.

Although the law could still be blocked at some other stage, it remains on the books right now, effectively gutting Roe v. Wade for women in Texas and likely in other Republican-controlled states that are looking to pass similar restrictions.

Democrats To Probe Secretive 'Shadow Docket' Following Supreme Court Texas Abortion Ruling

The conservative Supreme Court majority has relied on emergency appeals with increasing frequency to issue rulings, with no public deliberation or notice.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Lookinagain]

Even given the current make-up, I was anti expanding the Supreme Court. Yeah, not any more.

I've been thinking the same thing. I was against expanding it, but although I'm not thrilled with the idea, I'd support it now. Once these cases are actually heard after full briefs are presented and oral argument, I'm holding out a small degree of hope that the Court, even with it's conservative majority, will find these laws too restrictive and the Texas method of enforcing it, basically deputizing the entire Texas population, as unconstitutional. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[missy]

Late Thursday night, Planned Parenthood affiliates filed a court request in a district court for a temporary restraining order against Texas Right to Life in order to stop its abortion providers and health care workers from being sued under the new "sue thy neighbor" abortion ban.

And President Biden vowed to take action to "ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe..." (ABC News)



****Austin, Texas-based dating platform, Bumble, joined with rival dating platform, Match, to create a relief fund for those affected by the Texas law.**** (CNN)

Possibly following in Texas' footsteps, Florida Republican legislators said they're now considering replicating the ban on early-stage abortions. (The Hill)

 

[Lookinagain]

Possibly following in Texas' footsteps, Florida Republican legislators said they're now considering replicating the ban on early-stage abortions. (The Hill)

This is just the first in a long line of this type of legislation that we will see being passed by some states. I envision some type of underground railroad to spring up to help women in need.
Part of me hopes that the Court decides the Mississippi case early in the term beginning in October, in the hopes that they would clarify the (un)constitutionality of these statutes, but part of me is frightened that they will support this type of legislation and gut Roe. These are very scary times we are living in.

 

[kgizo]

 

[kenny]

Even given the current make-up, I was anti expanding the Supreme Court. Yeah, not any more.

If Biden ups the number from 9 to install more liberals what's to stop the next red POTUS from upping the number again?
Eventually we'd have zillions of Supreme Court justices.

 

[Lookinagain]

If Biden ups the number from 9 to install more liberals what's to stop the next red POTUS from upping the number again?
Eventually we'd have zillions of Supreme Court justices.

Well, we've had up to 10 (under Lincoln) and as few as 5 (under John Adams). Since the constitution doesn't say how many Justices there needs to be, Congress has, in the past either upped, or lowered the number, for political reasons. Granted, we've had 9 since the middle/late 1800's, but its not an unheard of move for the number of justices to be made higher, or lowered, for political reasons. I'm not saying I support it in theory, but it isn't something that has never been done in the past.

Instead of raising the number of justices, the number could be lowered, to say 7. Boot off the most junior 2 if that's how they lower the number. Then you'd have 3 liberals and 3 conservatives with Roberts as the swing vote, who lately seems to be fairly moderate. Of course if getting it reduced to 7 would mean waiting for a few to die or retire, unfortunately the 3 junior members are unlikely to do either.

But of course I doubt we'll see Congress changing the number up or down, but anything is possible these days. Scary possible.

 

[mrs-b]

If Biden ups the number from 9 to install more liberals what's to stop the next red POTUS from upping the number again?
Eventually we'd have zillions of Supreme Court justices.

A bit like our current situation with self-appointed sheriffs in Texas.

 

[Gussie]

A bit like our current situation with self-appointed sheriffs in Texas.

A bit terrifying considering those same sheriffs can pack with no training. I am embarrassed to be a Texan.

 

[Calliecake]

Forbes is reporting Florida lawmakers suggest they will copy the Texas Abortion Ban and other GOP states are likely to follow.

Is anyone surprised by this bit of information?

 

[bludiva]

Forbes is reporting Florida lawmakers suggest they will copy the Texas Abortion Ban and other GOP states are likely to follow.

Is anyone surprised by this bit of information?

nope, heard on the radio today 4 states are following suit

 

[MissGotRocks]

It is 2021 - hard to believe that this has happened! The enforcement all done by your friends and neighbors - what a concept!!

 

[Calliecake]

It is 2021 - hard to believe that this has happened! The enforcement all done by your friends and neighbors - what a concept!!

Gives new meaning to what it is to be an American.

 

[Calliecake]

nope, heard on the radio today 4 states are following suit

This makes me want to cry.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Gives new meaning to what it is to be an American.

Doesn’t speak for the whole country - least not yet.

 

[kenny]

What a stoopid sh!t show!
It's all sooooo ridiculous!

Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers' Legal Fees If They're Sued Under Texas Abortion Law

Texas's restrictive new abortion law has raised concerns that people who drive for the ride-hailing companies could face lawsuits for transporting passengers to clinics.

www.npr.org

 

[Calliecake]

I wish I thought it was stupid and ridiculous. I think it’s just plain scary.

There was an abortion clinic in a building next to the building I worked in. It’s not like the word abortion was anywhere on the building. The only way I knew it was an abortion clinic was due to the creepy men (and women) sitting out side holding signs and screaming obscenities at the women who walked inside. A Lyft driver goes to an address. Are they supposed to have a list of abortion clinics posted in their car so they know what is happening inside the office building.

 

[icy_jade]

nope, heard on the radio today 4 states are following suit

Omg what is happening to the US?

Trump, Afghanistan, now this.

 

[missy]

A breakdown of Abortion Laws all over the world.
This list is from 2021 but not completely accurate. Case in point it says there are no restrictions for abortion in the USA.


"


Abortion has always been a controversial subject. While many people believe that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she elects to have an abortion, others have religious, political, emotional, and personal morals that lead them to believe that having an abortion is wrong. It all comes down to various upbringing, ethics, religious backgrounds, political alignments, and other attributes that play into forming opinions. Because of these factors and more, abortion rates vary significantly between nations.

Around the world, some countries have taken away the woman's right to choose and have decided for all women by making abortion illegal. When the government gets involved in abortion, there is no longer the option for women to ultimately decide what happens to their bodies, should they ever become pregnant. Whether or not pregnancy is planned, thousands of women are faced with the situation of deciding between having a baby or scheduling an appointment for an abortion.




There are currently twenty-six countrieswhere all abortions are illegal, regardless of if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. In 37 countries, abortion is illegal unless it saves the mother's life, and in others, it is illegal unless used to save the mother's life or preserve her health.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported on the number of abortions performed in all countries, whether abortion is legal or illegal. According to the World Health Organization findings, the legality of abortion across the world has little to no effect on how many abortions occur every year. The legality of abortion, however, does affect the number of safe abortions women are having.
Abortions take place all over the world, with a few very rare exceptions. In Latin America, the trio of countries with restricted access to abortions in entirety is El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. The Vatican City in Europe decided that the country's citizens are not allowed to receive abortions, just like the anti-abortion countries in Latin America. In Europe, the country of Malta is similar to Vatican City in that abortions are illegal, but there's one exception to the abortion law in Malta.
According to the government of Malta, abortions can be performed if they are necessary to save the would-be mother's life. Pregnancies often do not go as planned, in that health concerns or medical emergencies can arise during pregnancy, as well as at birth. The focus of the government of Malta's exception to their country's abortion law is the instance in which a mother's health might be at risk during pregnancy.
An example of this is when a woman becomes pregnant. Still, the embryo does not grow within the mother's uterus, but rather, either in a different organ or just outside the uterus. Either way, these situations are called ectopic pregnancies, and they are fatal for women if the pregnancies are allowed to endure. Abortion is the only option in this scenario, and in Malta, abortion in this situation would be legal.
Here is a brief breakdown of some of the larger countries around the world and their respective perspectives on terminating pregnancies, laws regarding abortions to date, or bans placed on abortion throughout the years.

Brazil​

This Latin American country has not completely restricted abortions, but they are not available for any woman or just any reason. The option to choose what is best for her body is not a right provided to women in Brazil. Instead, abortions are only legal for women who have been raped by an assailant they do not know, as well as rape or sexual activity with a family member. Additionally, if the pregnant woman's life is at stake due to the pregnancy, she will be able to pursue the procedure.

Canada​

Abortions are no longer illegal in Canada, though they were banned until the year 1988. The government of this North American country has since then reversed the laws that once made abortions illegal. Deemed as unconstitutional with respect to the foundation upon which Canada was established, Canada is also known for having free healthcare for Canadian citizens.
Abortions fall under the services that the national healthcare covers, but this is only applicable if the abortions are performed in hospitals. If you were to go to a clinic, like Planned Parenthood, then Canadian citizens might run into a situation where they would have to individually pay for their abortions.

Russia​

As the largest country in the world, Russia is the country that leads in the number of abortions performed on an annual basis. Russia has the highest number of abortions performed per year, and there are no laws against abortions in Russia when the pregnancy is less than twelve weeks in length up until 2003. After that point, the Russian government extended the period during which abortions are legal, up until twenty-two weeks of pregnancy.
Reasons that constitute abortions in Russia include rape, health risks to the pregnant woman, imprisonment of the woman, the risk of death for the mom or the baby, and physical or mental disabilities to the fetus that put the unborn baby in a dangerous position.
The table below has each country's abortion law. Note that this is a general list of laws, and every country has more specific rules and exceptions.

• Prohibited altogether: Abortion is banned
• To save a woman's life: Abortion is allowed when it saves the mother's life
• To preserve physical health: Abortion is allowed when it saves the mother's life and/or preserves her physical health
• To preserve physical/mental health: Abortion is allowed when it saves the mother's life and/or preserves her physical or mental health
• To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds: Abortion is allowed when it saves the mother's life, preserves her physical or mental health, and for socio-economic reasons
• No restriction: Abortion is restricted to a specified reason to get one, but gestational and other requirements apply.

Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2021​

Country	Abortion on Request	2021 Population
Afghanistan	To save a woman's life	39,835,428
Albania	No restriction	2,872,933
Algeria	To preserve physical/mental health	44,616,624
Andorra	Prohibited altogether	77,355
Angola	Prohibited altogether	33,933,610
Antigua And Barbuda	To save a woman's life	98,731
Argentina	To preserve physical health	45,605,826
Armenia	No restriction	2,968,127
Australia	No restriction	25,788,215
Austria	No restriction	9,043,070
Azerbaijan	No restriction	10,223,342
Bahamas	To preserve physical health	396,913
Bahrain	No restriction	1,748,296
Bangladesh	To save a woman's life	166,303,498
Barbados	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	287,711
Belarus	No restriction	9,442,862
Belgium	No restriction	11,632,326
Belize	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	404,914
Benin	To preserve physical health	12,451,040
Bhutan	To save a woman's life	779,898
Bolivia	To preserve physical health	11,832,940
Bosnia And Herzegovina	No restriction	3,263,466
Botswana	To preserve physical/mental health	2,397,241
Brazil	To save a woman's life	213,993,437
Bulgaria	No restriction	6,896,663
Burkina Faso	To preserve physical health	21,497,096
Burundi	To preserve physical health	12,255,433
Cambodia	No restriction	16,946,438
Cameroon	To preserve physical health	27,224,265
Canada	No restriction	38,067,903
Cape Verde	No restriction	561,898
Central African Republic	To preserve physical health	4,919,981
Chad	To preserve physical health	16,914,985
Chile	To save a woman's life	19,212,361
Colombia	To preserve physical/mental health	51,265,844
Comoros	To preserve physical health	888,451
Costa Rica	To preserve physical health	5,139,052
Croatia	No restriction	4,081,651
Cuba	No restriction	11,317,505
Cyprus	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	1,215,584
Czech Republic	No restriction	10,724,555
Denmark	No restriction	5,813,298
Djibouti	To preserve physical health	1,002,187
Dominica	To save a woman's life	72,167
Dominican Republic	Prohibited altogether	10,953,703
Dr Congo	Prohibited altogether	92,377,993
Ecuador	To preserve physical health	17,888,475
Egypt	Prohibited altogether	104,258,327
El Salvador	Prohibited altogether	6,518,499
Equatorial Guinea	To preserve physical health	1,449,896
Eritrea	To preserve physical/mental health	3,601,467
Estonia	No restriction	1,325,185
Eswatini	To preserve physical/mental health	1,172,362
Ethiopia	To preserve physical health	117,876,227
Fiji	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	902,906
Finland	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	5,548,360
France	No restriction	65,426,179
Gabon	Prohibited altogether	2,278,825
Gambia	To preserve physical/mental health	2,486,945
Germany	No restriction	83,900,473
Ghana	To preserve physical/mental health	31,732,129
Greece	No restriction	10,370,744
Grenada	To preserve physical health	113,021
Guatemala	To save a woman's life	18,249,860
Guinea	To preserve physical health	13,497,244
Guyana	No restriction	790,326
Haiti	Prohibited altogether	11,541,685
Honduras	Prohibited altogether	10,062,991
Hong Kong	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	7,552,810
Hungary	No restriction	9,634,164
Iceland	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	343,353
India	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	1,393,409,038
Indonesia	To save a woman's life	276,361,783
Iran	To save a woman's life	85,028,759
Iraq	Prohibited altogether	41,179,350
Ireland	To save a woman's life	4,982,907
Israel	To preserve physical/mental health	8,789,774
Italy	No restriction	60,367,477
Ivory Coast	To save a woman's life	27,053,629
Jamaica	To preserve physical/mental health	2,973,463
Japan	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	126,050,804
Jordan	To preserve physical health	10,269,021
Kazakhstan	No restriction	18,994,962
Kenya	To preserve physical health	54,985,698
Kiribati	To save a woman's life	121,392
Kuwait	To preserve physical health	4,328,550
Kyrgyzstan	No restriction	6,628,356
Laos	Prohibited altogether	7,379,358
Latvia	No restriction	1,866,942
Lebanon	To save a woman's life	6,769,146
Lesotho	To preserve physical health	2,159,079
Liberia	To preserve physical/mental health	5,180,203
Libya	To save a woman's life	6,958,532
Liechtenstein	To preserve physical health	38,250
Lithuania	No restriction	2,689,862
Luxembourg	No restriction	634,814
Madagascar	Prohibited altogether	28,427,328
Malawi	To save a woman's life	19,647,684
Malaysia	To preserve physical/mental health	32,776,194
Maldives	To preserve physical health	543,617
Mali	To save a woman's life	20,855,735
Malta	Prohibited altogether	442,784
Marshall Islands	Prohibited altogether	59,610
Mauritania	Prohibited altogether	4,775,119
Mauritius	To preserve physical/mental health	1,273,433
Mexico	To save a woman's life	130,262,216
Micronesia	Prohibited altogether	116,254
Moldova	No restriction	4,024,019
Monaco	To preserve physical health	39,511
Mongolia	No restriction	3,329,289
Montenegro	No restriction	628,053
Morocco	To preserve physical health	37,344,795
Mozambique	To preserve physical/mental health	32,163,047
Myanmar	To save a woman's life	54,806,012
Namibia	To preserve physical/mental health	2,587,344
Nauru	To preserve physical/mental health	10,876
Nepal	No restriction	29,674,920
Netherlands	No restriction	17,173,099
New Zealand	To preserve physical/mental health	4,860,643
Nicaragua	Prohibited altogether	6,702,385
Niger	To preserve physical health	25,130,817
Nigeria	To save a woman's life	211,400,708
North Korea	No restriction	25,887,041
North Macedonia	No restriction	2,082,658
Norway	No restriction	5,465,630
Oman	To save a woman's life	5,223,375
Pakistan	To preserve physical health	225,199,937
Palau	Prohibited altogether	18,169
Panama	To save a woman's life	4,381,579
Papua New Guinea	To save a woman's life	9,119,010
Paraguay	To save a woman's life	7,219,638
Peru	To preserve physical health	33,359,418
Philippines	Prohibited altogether	111,046,913
Poland	To preserve physical health	37,797,005
Portugal	No restriction	10,167,925
Qatar	To preserve physical health	2,930,528
Republic Of The Congo	Prohibited altogether	5,657,013
Romania	No restriction	19,127,774
Russia	No restriction	145,912,025
Rwanda	To preserve physical health	13,276,513
Saint Kitts And Nevis	To preserve physical/mental health	53,544
Saint Lucia	To preserve physical/mental health	184,400
Saint Vincent And The Grenadines	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	111,263
Samoa	To preserve physical/mental health	200,149
San Marino	Prohibited altogether	34,017
Sao Tome And Principe	Prohibited altogether	223,368
Saudi Arabia	To preserve physical health	35,340,683
Senegal	Prohibited altogether	17,196,301
Serbia	No restriction	8,697,550
Seychelles	To preserve physical/mental health	98,908
Sierra Leone	To preserve physical/mental health	8,141,343
Singapore	No restriction	5,896,686
Slovakia	No restriction	5,460,721
Slovenia	No restriction	2,078,724
Solomon Islands	To save a woman's life	703,996
Somalia	To save a woman's life	16,359,504
South Africa	No restriction	60,041,994
South Korea	To preserve physical health	51,305,186
South Sudan	To save a woman's life	11,381,378
Spain	No restriction	46,745,216
Sri Lanka	To save a woman's life	21,497,310
Sudan	To save a woman's life	44,909,353
Suriname	Prohibited altogether	591,800
Sweden	No restriction	10,160,169
Switzerland	No restriction	8,715,494
Syria	To save a woman's life	18,275,702
Taiwan	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	23,855,010
Tajikistan	No restriction	9,749,627
Tanzania	To save a woman's life	61,498,437
Thailand	To preserve physical/mental health	69,950,850
Timor Leste	To save a woman's life	1,343,873
Togo	To preserve physical health	8,478,250
Tonga	Prohibited altogether	106,760
Trinidad And Tobago	To preserve physical/mental health	1,403,375
Tunisia	No restriction	11,935,766
Turkey	No restriction	85,042,738
Turkmenistan	No restriction	6,117,924
Tuvalu	To save a woman's life	11,931
Uganda	To save a woman's life	47,123,531
Ukraine	No restriction	43,466,819
United Arab Emirates	To save a woman's life	9,991,089
United Kingdom	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	68,207,116
United States	No restriction...not true anymore	332,915,073
Uruguay	No restriction	3,485,151
Uzbekistan	No restriction	33,935,763
Vanuatu	To preserve physical health	314,464
Venezuela	To save a woman's life	28,704,954
Vietnam	No restriction	98,168,833
Yemen	To save a woman's life	30,490,640
Zambia	To preserve health/on socioeconomic grounds	18,920,651
Zimbabwe	To preserve physical health	15,092,171

Abortion is legal in the USA but varies by state. Obviously, this new law in Texas, for all intents and purposes, makes abortion illegal for most.

 

[missy]

Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won’t Block Texas Abortion Law (Published 2021)

The law, which prohibits most abortions after six weeks and went into effect on Wednesday, was drafted by Texas lawmakers with the goal of frustrating efforts to challenge it in federal court.

www.nytimes.com

"
The Supreme Court refused just before midnight on Wednesday to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions, less than a day after it took effect and became the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.
The majority opinion was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. It said the abortion providers who had challenged the law in an emergency application to the court had not made their case in the face of “complex and novel” procedural questions. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law and did not mean to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.
But the ruling was certain to fuel the hopes of abortion opponents and fears of abortion rights advocates as the court takes up a separate case in its new term this fall to decide whether Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to the procedure, should be overruled. It also left Texas abortion providers turning away patients as they scrambled to comply with the law, which prohibits abortions after roughly six weeks.
All four dissenting justices filed opinions.
“The court’s order is stunning,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”
“The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward.
“The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”
The chief justice underscored the tentative nature of the majority’s ruling. “Although the court denies the applicants’ request for emergency relief today,” he wrote, “the court’s order is emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue.”
Justice Elena Kagan criticized the court’s practice of deciding important issues in rushed decisions without full briefing or oral argument — on what Supreme Court specialists call its “shadow docket.”
“Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the court’s ‘shadow-docket’ decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process,” she wrote. “That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence.”
“Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the court of appeals — which is right now considering the same issues,” she wrote. “It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion — that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail.”
“In all these ways,” Justice Kagan wrote, “the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.”

Image

The Supreme Court majority cited “complex and novel” procedural questions for its decision, emphasizing that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law.Credit...Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times
The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in Texas because 85 to 90 percent of procedures in the state happen after the sixth week of pregnancy, according to lawyers for several clinics. On Tuesday night, clinics were scrambling to see patients until the minute the law went into effect, with six-hour waits for procedures in some places. By Wednesday, the patient lists had shrunk, clinic workers said in interviews.
The law is the latest battle over abortion rights in the United States. In recent years, anti-abortion campaigners have found success through laws in state legislatures, and a broad swath of the South and the Midwest now has limited access to abortions.
Texas has about 24 abortion clinics, down from roughly 40 before 2013, when the State Legislature imposed a previous round of restrictions. It was not immediately clear on Wednesday if every one of them was complying with the law, which the Republican governor signed in May, but many, in interviews, said they were.

In the emergency application urging the justices to intervene, abortion providers in the state said the new law “would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas,” and most likely force “many abortion clinics ultimately to close.”
Supreme Court precedents prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The law in Texas says doctors cannot perform abortions if a heartbeat is detected, activity that starts at around six weeks, before many women are even aware they are pregnant.

Image

Anti-abortion protesters near the gate of the Texas State Capitol in May. Credit...Sergio Flores/Getty Images
Many states have passed such bans, but the law in Texas is different. It was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court.
Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.
The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, and even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.
That novel formulation has sent clinics scrambling.
Dr. Jessica Rubino, a doctor at Austin Women’s Health Center, a small, independent clinic in the state capital, said that at first, she wanted to defy what appeared to be an unconstitutional law. But she said she concluded that doing so would put her staff at risk.
“If this was a criminal ban, we’d know what this is and what we can and cannot do,” Dr. Rubino said. “But this ban has civil implications. It requires a lawyer to go to court. It requires lawyers’ fees. And then $10,000 if we don’t win. What happens if everybody is sued, not just me?”
She added: “My staff is nervous. They’ve been asking, ‘What about our families?’”
Dr. Rubino said her clinic had “struggled so much to come up with any plan to take care of anyone” under the new law, and on Wednesday was sorting out what the new policies would be. For example, she wondered, if someone knows they are more than six or seven weeks pregnant — roughly the new legal limit — should the clinic advise them to go out of state and not waste money on an ultrasound?

Image

Clinics in Texas have struggled to understand the ban and to continue caring for patients.Credit...Montinique Monroe for The New York Times
Doctors who are sued, even if the suit is dismissed, have to report the lawsuits when they renew licenses or obtain hospital admitting privileges, according to Amy Hagstrom Miller, the chief executive at Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas.
There was little indication of the shifting legal ground outside the Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston, the group’s only location in the city that provides abortion services. A blue bus offering free pregnancy tests from an anti-abortion group, a regular presence, sat across the street. But inside, the effect was clear: Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a staff physician, said he had seen six patients by Wednesday afternoon, down from his usual 30.

Understand the Texas Abortion Law​

Card 1 of 4
The most restrictive in the country. The Texas abortion law, known as Senate Bill 8, amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in the state. It prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of preganancy and makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.
Citizens, not the state, will enforce the law. The law effectively deputizes ordinary citizens — including those from outside Texas — allowing them to sue clinics and others who violate the law. It awards them at least $10,000 per illegal abortion if they are successful.
Patients cannot be sued. The law allows doctors, staff and even a patient’s Uber driver to become potential defendants.
The Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court refused just before midnight on Wednesday to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions, less than a day after it took effect and became the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

At Whole Woman’s Health of Fort Worth, the last patient appointment was completed at 11:56 p.m. on Tuesday, said Marva Sadler, the organization’s senior director of clinic services. She said doctors started early on Tuesday morning and treated 117 patients, far more than usual.
“It was absolutely organized chaos,” said Ms. Sadler, who had come from San Antonio to help out. “Patients were waiting upward of five and six hours to have their procedures done.”
She said patients were waiting in their cars, and also in the waiting room. Some were told to come back later. On Wednesday, she said, the clinic was in uncharted waters. Of the 79 people on the schedule, she estimated that about 20 would be able to eventually complete their procedures. Many, she said, would be too far along in their pregnancies to be treated under the new law.
“People are confused,” she said. “They don’t know where to go. They don’t know what this law is.”
The immediate question for the justices was not whether the Texas law is constitutional, but whether it may be challenged in federal court. The law’s defenders say that, given the way the law is structured, only Texas courts can rule on the matter and only in the context of suits against abortion providers for violating the law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was provisional. The challenge to the law remains pending in the lower federal courts, and they are poised to sort through the complex issues in the case.
As the law came into force, Democrats assailed it and pledged to fight to retain abortion rights in Texas and nationwide. In a statement, President Biden said the measure “blatantly violates” the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

Image

Texas state representatives who opposed the bill banning abortions as early as six weeks.Credit...Eric Gay/Associated Press
In its next term, which starts in October, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled in a case from Mississippi concerning a state law banning most abortions after 15 weeks that has been blocked by the courts.
The Texas case, which was on the court’s “shadow docket” without a full briefing or oral arguments, leapfrogged the one from Mississippi.
The Texas and Mississippi laws are among many measures enacted by Republican-controlled state legislatures intended to test the durability of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding and said states may not impose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion before fetal viability.
The lawmakers behind the various state-based measures are betting that the Supreme Court’s recent shift to the right will lead it to sustain the new laws. The court now includes three members appointed by President Donald J. Trump, who had vowed to name justices prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade.
One of them, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, replaced Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a cautious supporter of abortion rights. Another, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who viewed access to abortion as essential to women’s autonomy and equality.
Two months after Senate Bill 8 was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, abortion providers in Texas filed suit in federal court, naming, among others, every state trial court judge and county court clerk in Texas.
The defendants responded that they were not proper parties and were, in any event, immune from being sued.
A federal trial judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case and scheduled a hearing on whether to block the law. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, canceled the hearing.
The challengers said they were at minimum entitled to a decision on their request for the law to be temporarily suspended.

"

Texas judge temporarily blocks anti-abortion group from suing Planned Parenthood abortion providers under new law | CNN Politics

A district judge in Texas has issued a temporary restraining order against Texas Right to Life, blocking the anti-abortion group from suing abortion providers employed by Planned Parenthood under the state's strict new abortion law, according to a copy of the order provided by Planned Parenthood.

www.cnn.com

Washington, DC (CNN)A district judge in Texas has issued a temporary restraining order against Texas Right to Life, blocking the anti-abortion group from suing abortion providers employed by Planned Parenthood under the state's strict new abortion law, according to a copy of the order provided by Planned Parenthood.
The law, which took effect this week, bans abortions after as early as six weeks into pregnancy and allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the law. It is among the strictest in the nation and bars abortions just after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows that she is pregnant.
Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Travis County ruled that the medical providers faced "probable, irreparable, and imminent injury" if they were sued by the private group in connection with abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, as provided for under the law.

Planned Parenthood health facilities in Texas had filed the lawsuit in Travis County District Court on Thursday night, contending, "At every turn, S.B. 8 purports to replace normal civil-litigation rules and clearly established constitutional rules with distorted versions designed to maximize the harassing nature of the lawsuits and to make them impossible to fairly defend against."
Helene Krasnoff, vice president of public policy litigation and law at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, praised the order on Friday, saying in a statement, "We are relieved that the Travis County district court has acted quickly to grant this restraining order against Texas Right to Life and anyone working with them as deputized enforcers of this draconian law."
The law allows any person -- as long as they're not a government official -- to bring a civil lawsuit in state court against a provider accused of violating the new law, regardless of whether the person bringing the lawsuit has any connection to the abortion being sought. If they prevail, they are entitled to at least $10,000 in damages, and the law is structured to make it especially costly for clinics that are targeted with an enforcement action. It prohibits clinics from recouping attorneys' fees from their court foes, even if judges side with the providers in the lawsuits. The measure also prevents clinics from seeking to transfer the cases to venues more convenient for them, unless they have the agreement of their opponents.

The law was designed to make it much more difficult to bring a preenforcement challenge because there are not the usual government officials to hold accountable in court.
While the cases already winding through the federal courts have focused on government officials, the new suit's principal defendant is the organization Texas Right to Life, which garnered attention by creating a website allowing people to post tips about possible illegal abortions taking place in the state.
Gamble said the temporary restraining order applies not only to Texas Right to Life, but also to "any and all parties and persons in active concert and participation with them." A preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled for September 13.
Texas Right to Life director Elizabeth Graham said in a statement following the judge's order that "this lawsuit will not stop the work of Texas Right to Life."
"Planned Parenthood can keep suing us, but Texas Right to Life will never back down from protecting pregnant women and preborn children from abortion," Graham said.
The US Supreme Court earlier this week formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze the state law from going into effect, leaving the law to remain on the books.
CNN's Rachel Janfaza and Ariane de Vogue contributed to this report.

 

[missy]

What happens next.

What the Texas abortion ban does — and what it means for other states

The law bans abortions as early as six weeks after conception and allows Texans to sue anyone who aids, abets or performs an abortion past that mark.

www.npr.org

"
With the U.S. Supreme Court mum, a new law went into effect in Texas that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. That's well before many women even know they are pregnant.

The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion — including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing.

The law makes no exceptions for cases involving rape or incest.

Here's why the law is one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.

What does the Texas law prohibit?​

It bans abortion as soon as cardiac activity is detectable. That's around six weeks, which is before a lot of people know that they're pregnant. Other states have tried to do this, but those laws have been challenged by abortion-rights groups and blocked by federal courts again and again.

NATIONAL​

In Texas, 666 Laws Take Effect Wednesday, Including Many Conservative Priorities​

How is this law different from other states' efforts?​

Groups who oppose abortion rights have pushed for this Texas law, hoping that it will be harder for federal courts to knock it down. Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions.

This law empowers individuals to enforce an abortion ban. How would that work in practice?​

Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.

"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."

In a federal lawsuit challenging this, a coalition of abortion providers and reproductive rights groups said the law "places a bounty on people who provide or aid abortions, inviting random strangers to sue them."

While Texas doctors say they will comply with the new law, they must address patients' concerns and questions, including about how to get an out-of-state procedure.

What does the law mean for patients and abortion providers?​

Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a family medicine doctor who works for Planned Parenthood in Houston, says the law creating a lot of uncertainty for patients and providers. But Kumar insists he will comply.

The ban, though, will likely mean a lot of questions from patients about how they can get an abortion outside of Texas, Kumar said.

"I know that there are many people who don't have to ability to make it out of state ... The logistics and ability to do so is not an option for them," he said. "So I'm really concerned about what's going to happen to people."

Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, an OB/GYN, told NPR over the weekend that patients are apprehensive. "They understand that the abortion that they're having this week, last week, the week before, is something that they wouldn't be able to have next week. They've been asking about it and asking, you know, 'If I were here in September, would I be able to get this?' "

What does this mean for abortion laws in other states?​

If the federal courts ultimately allow this law to stand, it's very likely that other conservative states will move to pass similar laws. Seago, with Texas Right to Life, said his organization is working with activists in multiple states who are eager to replicate this model if it succeeds in blocking access to most abortions in Texas.

"It is still a bit untested. We're still working on what these lawsuits are going to look like if the industry decides to break the law," Seago said. "So it is a new model that we're still testing out."

What happens next?​

Multiple court challenges to the law are underway, including several lawsuits in state court in Texas targeting anti-abortion-rights groups including Texas Right to Life. Abortion rights groups are also organizing protests and demonstrations in Texas in opposition to the law.

A spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life told NPR that no lawsuits against abortion providers are imminent, and abortion providers say they will comply with the law as long as it is in effect."

 

[missy]

Word.

 

[bludiva]

Abortion is legal in the USA but varies by state. Obviously, this new law in Texas, for all intents and purposes, makes abortion illegal for most.

No just the people who can’t afford to go out of state. You betcha these legislators daughters and mistresses will still have unfettered access :/

 

[Matata]

It's ironic that many of the people supporting the law are also the ones fearing that brown skinned people are taking over America. The majority of abortions performed in Texas are among Hispanics and Blacks. This law ensures the birth of the people they fear. I doubt the Textaliban will be happy when they figure that out.

 

[Lookinagain]

I doubt the Textaliban will be happy when they figure that out.

Maybe they aren’t very bright

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Under His Eye.

 

[Ella]

Folks, a reminder that we don't allow religion or politics. This thread will be closed if that cannot be respected. Please keep it to discussions of reproductive rights and health.

I recognize it is difficult to discuss this without discussion of politics or religion, but I have every confidence in you all to be careful moving forward so that this discussion can remain.

 

[Calliecake]

@Ella, With all do respect I think you are being wrong here. The overwhelming majority of people on this forum are women. What is happening now in our country is something major that will impact womens lives for years to come. No one has been disrespectful to others in this thread.

Poor Women will die due to decisions like this. There will be women dying from back ally abortions. There will be woman who are pregnant as a result of a rape who will comit suicide.