Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'

[beautress]

Wrong.
Abortion was legal in Texas before 1856.

{... By 1854, Texas passed a law that made it illegal for a physician (or someone else, usually someone else at that time) to perform an abortion. That was punishable by up to five years in prison (minimum sentence being two years). ...}

The state should have no jurisdiction over abortion, and Texas is in violation of the basis for law in a democratic republic.

That's because you don't understand a few things. Laws were only passed in the new state of Texas when they were needed. And that one was one nobody ever dreamed of here less than 12 years after we became the 28th State in the US on December 28, 1845. Our forbears didn't realize it until the situation of our sparse population demanded that children would help fill in the blanks. That's why almost 200 years later. we still consider children as treasures and not inconveniences like the Deep state views them since they have no reason to do anything than to view children in a cold, calculated way, i. e. inconveniences. We don't go for that in the Lone Star State. We care about our own.

 

[beautress]

Wrong.
Abortion was legal in Texas before 1856.

{... By 1854, Texas passed a law that made it illegal for a physician (or someone else, usually someone else at that time) to perform an abortion. That was punishable by up to five years in prison (minimum sentence being two years). ...}

The state should have no jurisdiction over abortion, and Texas is in violation of the basis for law in a democratic republic.

States have rights.

 

[Rigby5]

That's because you don't understand a few things. Laws were only passed in the new state of Texas when they were needed. And that one was one nobody ever dreamed of here less than 12 years after we became the 28th State in the US on December 28, 1845. Our forbears didn't realize it until the situation of our sparse population demanded that children would help fill in the blanks. That's why almost 200 years later. we still consider children as treasures and not inconveniences like the Deep state views them since they have no reason to do anything than to view children in a cold, calculated way, i. e. inconveniences. We don't go for that in the Lone Star State. We care about our own.

I lived in Texas for a few years, and saw no concern for children.
Schools were not good, there was less daycare, more pollution from refineries, no urban planning to allow for safe or easy transportation, very poor mass transit, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

States have rights.

Wrong.
Only individuals have rights.
Individuals can then create states and delegate them authority, but states can never have any rights at all, ever.

 

[beautress]

Wrong.
Only individuals have rights.
Individuals can then create states and delegate them authority, but states can never have any rights at all, ever.

Human beings have rights in the constitution of this country which includes the RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of halpiness. The mistake made by the Supreme court in Roe v. Wade was their failure to understand the most basic of precepts: they failed to acknowledge that Yes, human life begins at conception. That is, was, and will ever be the truth. When conception occurs, a 2-celled being is formed by dna particles ligning up with unique characters ligning up in such a way a unique zygote has the chance to go for its attachment to the uterus for succor to form stage 2 of its human life of forming through the miraculous growth of the little bitty human being growing unique physical characteristics according to its cheerful demands in the dna "instruction book." It's a miracle!

Yea!!! Life goes on. Again I say, ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡YAY!!!!!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States have rights.

But they’re not unlimited.

States are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts.

States don’t have the right to deny immigrant children access to public education, states don’t have the right to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law, and states do not have the right to compel women to give birth against their will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But they’re not unlimited.
States are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts.
States don’t have the right to deny immigrant children access to public education, states don’t have the right to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law, and states do not have the right to compel women to give birth against their will.

And yet, you believe the TX ban on abortion is constitutional.
Why don't you ever mention this?

 

[Kilroy2]

It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.

There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong. Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?

How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful? You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus. Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.

See how that works?

Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'

That is how interpretation work. They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment

Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.

There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong. Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?

How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful? You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus. Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.

See how that works?

Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'

The Federal Government has no right sticking it's nose into a States right issue.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That is how interpretation work. They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment

Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.

As you ignore the part about the right of the people.

 

[Unkotare]

That is how interpretation work. They cry that the state or government cannot ban guns based on a few words as stated in the 2nd amendment. Yet ignoring the first part of the amendment about raising a milia as part of the amendment

Yet when it comes to the pursuit of happiness then they conveniently ignore it for the citizen but want to grant it to the unborn child who does not have citizenship.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[AZrailwhale]

I lived in Texas for a few years, and saw no concern for children.
Schools were not good, there was less daycare, more pollution from refineries, no urban planning to allow for safe or easy transportation, very poor mass transit, etc.

Right, conservative governments expect their citizens to be responsible for themselves. Mass transit is an expensive boondoggle everywhere it runs. Government has to subsidize it. Daycare is a private responsibility. Urban planning is unelected bureaucrats telling citizens what they can do with the property the citizens bought and paid for. None of what you complain about except controlling pollution are good things.