Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

I'm wondering, since it's now okay to sue people for exercising their civil rights, I'm wondering what else we can sue them for.

I'm thinking, first and foremost, people that won't wear masks and people that listen to Christian rock.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wanna sue people who cause car accidents and get $10,000 plus legal fees.

 

[lpetrich]

'This Is Untenable': Supreme Court Liberals Slam Decision On Texas Abortion Ban | HuffPost

The Texas law is “flagrantly,” “patently” and “obviously” unconstitutional, wrote Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in their dissents.

...
“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,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Calling the Texas law “patently” and “obviously” unconstitutional, Kagan went further, skewering the Supreme Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions ― a term that refers to decisions the court makes by simple orders based on relatively limited information, instead of after hearing full briefings and oral arguments.

The Supreme Court “has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion,” Kagan wrote in a dissent joined by Breyer and Sotomayor. “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadowdocket decisionmaking — which every day becomes more un-reasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.”

21A24 Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (09/01/2021) - 21a24_8759.pdf - has the dissents by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer.

Nancy Pelosi Announces Vote On Bill To Codify Roe v. Wade | HuffPost

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that she plans to bring up legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects the right to choose to have an abortion, as soon as the House returns from recess this month.

“Upon our return, the House will bring up Congresswoman Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America,” Pelosi said in a statement.

...
The House speaker railed against the Supreme Court’s decision, saying its “cowardly, dark-of-night decision” to let the Texas law take effect “delivers catastrophe to women in Texas, particularly women of color and women from low-income communities.”

“Every woman, everywhere has the constitutional right to basic health care. SB8 is the most extreme, dangerous abortion ban in half a century, and its purpose is to destroy Roe v. Wade, and even refuses to make exceptions for cases of rape and incest,” Pelosi said. “This ban necessitates codifying Roe v. Wade.”

The House is currently scheduled to return on Sep 20.

While this bill is likely to pass the House, it's likely that the Republicans will filibuster it to death. Not by talking and talking and talking about how abortion is this very terrible thing, but by one of them issuing a hold. All the more reason to abolish the filibuster.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also, as was stated on Rachel Maddow's show last night, it's near certain that other red states will enact copycat legislation, creating huge areas of the U.S. where abortion is gone.

 

[barbos]

I think some Blue State should quickly issue a law which allows to sue anybody who exercise or helps in any way that texas law by anybody for $100K.

I really see no way for this texas BS to stand.

 

[untermensche]

How many of these Republican appointed Justices swore they would respect Roe during confirmation?

Lying for Jesus.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Republicans promised to overturn Roe v Wade, and they have.

Democrats can either abolish the filibuster and expand the court, or do nothing as millions of peoples’ bodies, rights, and lives are sacrificed for far-right minority rule.

This shouldn’t be a difficult decision." / Twitter


I decided to consider the prospects for abortion tourism. That was very common in the US before Roe vs. Wade, with many people going to New York to get abortions.

• Abortion Tourism Expected to Grow among Polish Women | .TR
• Poland asks Czech Republic to stop cross-border “abortion tourism” - Kafkadesk
• Abortion Bans Across America Will Lead to Abortion Tourism—and Death | Observer
• The abortion underground: Groups quietly help women who have to travel to access care
  'A haven': New York sees rise in women traveling across state line for abortions | New York | The Guardian

From The Observer:

Those who could—that is, the “highly educated and professionally active” women in their early 30s—went abroad for the procedure, with nearby Germany the most popular destination for the “one-time event,” according to a 2017 study examining “Polish abortion tourism.”

They did this because they “were pressed for time” and had to make a decision quickly, and Germany has abortion services that are both free and quick.

...
In December 2017, health officials in Illinois noticed an increase of more than 30 percent in the number of women crossing state lines to come to Illinois to terminate a pregnancy.

•  Abortion in the United States by state - with lots of maps
• What If Roe Fell? | Center for Reproductive Rights

Considering Texas, the closest less-restrictive states are Kansas, New Mexico, and Illinois. Dallas - Wichita KS is 363 mi distance, 5h 22m drive time. Dallas - Albuquerque NB is 649 mi, 9h 34m, and Dallas - Carbondale IL is 640 mi, 9h 38m.

 

[lpetrich]

I looked for flights, and I found plenty of nonstop ones to Albuquerque and Wichita, alongside plenty with stopovers in Houston, Atlanta, Denver, and Chicago.

For Carbondale, the nearest airport is in Cape Girardeau, MO, about 45 mi away. The nearest town with an easily-accessible airport is East St. Louis IL, near St. Louis's airport.

I used orbitz.com to find estimates of travel times and costs, and for Chicago and Denver, both cost about $100 with travel times 2h 30m and 2h, both nonstop.

I then considered other big Texas cities. Austin - Denver: 2h 15m, Houston - Denver: 2h 30m.

Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue? | Guttmacher Institute has a discussion of abortion tourism.

When the UK liberalized its abortion law in 1967, it became a big destination for abortion tourism, with 600 American women going their in the last 3 months of 1969. By 1970, package deals were advertised in the popular media, deals including not only the procedure itself, but also airfare, passports, vaccination, transport to and from the airport, and lodging and meals for four days.

In 1970, four states, AK, HI, NY, and WA repealed antiabortion laws, generally allowing abortion on request before fetal viability. AK, HI, and WA had a 30-day residency requirement, NY didn't, and it became a popular destination for abortion tourists.

In the year before Roe vs. Wade, just over 100,000 women went to New York City to get abortions. Some 50,000 traveled more than 500 miles, 7,000 more than 1,000 miles, and 250 more than 2,000 miles, from places like AZ, ID, and NV.

The expense of going to NYC, staying there, and getting the abortion had this consequence. "While eight in 10 nonresidents obtaining abortions in the city between July 1971 and July 1972 were white, seven in 10 city residents who underwent the procedure during that time were nonwhite."

A further consequence was delay in getting the abortion. In 1972, no more than 10% of NYC residents got an abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy, while 23% of women from nonneighboring states did so.

There was also the problem of followup in case of complications, because by the time such things happen, the woman may already be home, and a long way from the place where she got her abortion.

 

[untermensche]

People should organize free bus trips from Texas to some civilized part of the country for women wanting to kill a parasite in their body.

 

[ideologyhunter]

58% of Americans want Roe to remain the law. (Consistently above 55% in poll after poll.) This is tyranny by a religious minority. The more I learn about this grotesque Texas law, the more horrible it is. Absolutely crazy. Deputizing the zanies in a state so that no one can be accountable for the way the law tramples on rights. And our SCOTUS is okay with this concept. Jesus. Christ.

 

[untermensche]

Basic rights should not be subject to a vote or be in need of a majority.

The insanity of religion has plagued humanity for centuries.

 

[barbos]

I think (democrat) women should deputize themselves to sue gun sellers who sold guns or ammo which ended up killing people.

Actually, there is no need for such a law. Murder is a very late or retroactive abortion, hence, I can sue gun shops already. So I do, all shops which from now on participated in retroactive abortion, see you in court! I am gonna be rich!

 

[bleubird]

Strange that Texass is 46th and lower in child health and education, but, cares about a 6 week old fetus.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Strange that Texass is 46th and lower in child health and education, but, cares about a 6 week old fetus.

At six weeks pregnant the fetus is really only about four weeks old.

 

[zorq]

People should organize free bus trips from Texas to some civilized part of the country for women wanting to kill a parasite in their body.

That's one of the more nefarious parts of the Texas law. It affects anyone helping abortion seekers who happen to be in Texas even if the abortion they are seeking is to be performed outside of Texas. Offering a woman in Texas a free ride over the border opens you up to litigation.

 

[untermensche]

People should organize free bus trips from Texas to some civilized part of the country for women wanting to kill a parasite in their body.

That's one of the more nefarious parts of the Texas law. It affects anyone helping abortion seekers who happen to be in Texas even if the abortion they are seeking is to be performed outside of Texas. Offering a woman in Texas a free ride over the border opens you up to litigation.

How exactly is that enforced?

We are taking these young women on a trip to Disneyland. What people do on their own time while there is their business.

 

[marc]

The way they set it up the state isn't enforcing anything. They make it legal for anyone to sue anyone on suspicion of aiding an abortion. So it is in effect enforcement by christian Karens. They will flood the court with frivolous lawsuits, and hope to crush the clinics with the financial burdens of defending themselves from all of this, and scare anyone else away from doing anything that might be considered helping with an abortion. And it will cost the state nothing unless some Karen actually wins one of those lawsuits, which I think would be a low probability.

 

[untermensche]

The way they set it up the state isn't enforcing anything. They make it legal for anyone to sue anyone on suspicion of aiding an abortion. So it is in effect enforcement by christian Karens. They will flood the court with frivolous lawsuits, and hope to crush the clinics with the financial burdens of defending themselves from all of this, and scare anyone else away from doing anything that might be considered helping with an abortion. And it will cost the state nothing unless some Karen actually wins one of those lawsuits, which I think would be a low probability.

Since the Supreme Court is now controlled by primitive deluded Christians that does make things difficult.

But the underground railroad saved many slaves even though helping slaves was illegal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People should organize free bus trips from Texas to some civilized part of the country for women wanting to kill a parasite in their body.

That's one of the more nefarious parts of the Texas law. It affects anyone helping abortion seekers who happen to be in Texas even if the abortion they are seeking is to be performed outside of Texas. Offering a woman in Texas a free ride over the border opens you up to litigation.

Isn't that a violation of interstate commerce between states? That stuff didn't fly in Loving v Virginia either. Though the odd thing with Loving v Virginia is that it actually punished the people getting married. The Texas law wants to punish everyone else around.

The law is so anti-democracy, that SCOTUS allowed it to go into force was indeed the worst decision, possibly by far, SCOTUS has ever made, and for multiple reasons including the use of technicalities to invoke laws but provide no Executive power to enforce them instead deputizing citizens, providing arbitrary standing to unattached people to sue, and all over an action the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly is legal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The way they set it up the state isn't enforcing anything. They make it legal for anyone to sue anyone on suspicion of aiding an abortion. So it is in effect enforcement by christian Karens. They will flood the court with frivolous lawsuits, and hope to crush the clinics with the financial burdens of defending themselves from all of this, and scare anyone else away from doing anything that might be considered helping with an abortion. And it will cost the state nothing unless some Karen actually wins one of those lawsuits, which I think would be a low probability.

Flood the court? Is that solution? What is the punishment for filing a umm... "mistaken" claim?