Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law

[john doe 101]

Someone please explain to me how the Fed with no legal say in how states legislate their own abortion laws can sue a state for exercising state privilege?

"The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully infringes on the constitutional rights of women and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law. Federal officials are also concerned other states could enact similar laws that would “deprive their citizens of their constitutional rights,” he said.

It is settled constitutional law that ‘a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability"-----" Justice Dept. sues Texas over state's new abortion law

Just to spell it out for you because I know you need that done for you, the Fed's believe Texas is violating its citizens constitutional rights.

That's how, dumbass.

 

[Lysistrata]

Your opinion does not change the fact the law grants standing.

It is a poorly written law that arguably violates the Constitution in several ways. Moreover, one thing that the right-wingers have taught us all is that there is no obligation to follow a law that one objects to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is a poorly written law that arguably violates the Constitution in several ways.

Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
Ask Clayton. He'll tell you.
Right, Clayton?
C'mon son - man up.

Moreover, one thing that the right-wingers have taught us all is that there is no obligation to follow a law that one objects to.

All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
Or so we are told by the left.
You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.

 

[Lysistrata]

The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.

I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry. I don't know about anyone else but I would be documenting all the violations of the criminal codes that the wanna-be plaintiffs would have to engage in in order to pursue a case of this nature and do everything I could to see that they're in jail instead and unable to participate in the civil process.

If all else fails, isn't Texas a stand your ground state? I think most women would be alarmed by being followed around by a bunch of strange men and/or women who may just want to sue them but you really can't be too sure. I sure wouldn't want to be a process server in that state anymore.

Don't forget the torts! Any bounty hunter who attempts to dig up dirt on a neighbor probably will be committing several.

 

[Lysistrata]

Lies as usual. We care about the unborn children a lot more than idiots like you do. Nobody is controlling the lives of women (or in your case one identifying as a woman). Merely not allowing murder of an unborn child with a heartbeat.

This is a belief in your religion. It obviously is not a universally held belief.

 

[Lysistrata]

Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
Ask Clayton. He'll tell you.
Right, Clayton?
C'mon son - man up.

All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
Or so we are told by the left.
You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.

This law must be ignored. Time is of the essence. And it was designed to target the rights of a specific group of citizens when there is no legitimate government interest. Remember that we are talking about civil law, not the rules of your particular religious group.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Doesn't change the fact that if the abortion is illegal they do not have an right to terminate the pregnancy.
As we all know, no right is unlimited; all rights are subject to restrictions.

There is no way to know whether or not an abortion is illegal without violating some serious rights and laws.

Let's say a woman knows when she got pregnant because she only had sex once yet the provider uses the date from her last period which is earlier than the date on which she actually conceived. If the provider starts counting 6 weeks from her last period yet the woman knows that the conception didn't happened until say 3 1/2 weeks after her last period then you have two different dates on which the termination allegedly becomes unlawful. The earlier date which the provider uses and is entered into her medical records is incorrect but I guaranteed you, that's the date they're going to use because it's a part of her medical history and record.

Furthermore this law doesn't include instruction on how one can determine if the law has been violated other than to say "after investigation". Investigations are by their very nature intrusive and can be a violation of the subject's right to privacy, even if it's a lawful violation. And what recourse does the defendant have when it's determined that the plaintiff was mistaken?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Like all other laws, it is assumed constitutional until it, specifically, is ruled unconstitutional.
Ask Clayton. He'll tell you.
Right, Clayton?
C'mon son - man up.

All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
Or so we are told by the left.
You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open youself to the legal consequences of same.

The patients aren't the ones who can be sued, another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd

 

[Rawley]

I haven't read the law only the analysis of it and I believe that a law granting private citizens standing to enforce criminal law as well as providing a cause of action that allows them to enrich themselves at the expense of another without having been personally harmed, violates the rights of the women involved.

You should probably read the law for yourself. Someone is feeding you bad analysis.

Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature

Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]

legiscan.com

It doesn't give "private citizens standing to enforce criminal law"

 

[M14 Shooter]

This law must be ignored.

You may very well choose to have an illegal abortion; you then open yourself to the legal consequences of same.

All rights are subject to restrictions; no right is unlimited.
Or so we are told by the left.
Why do you disagree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no way to know whether or not an abortion is illegal without violating some serious rights and laws.

Nothing here changes the fact the law is constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The patients aren't the ones who can be sued,

I know. The provider gets sued.

another swing and miss of the anti-choice crowd

Really? Seems to me like the very possibility of getting sued means providers will be rather hesitant to perform an abortion except under the most obvious exigency. "Sorry ma'am -- if I do this, I'll get sued and may lose my license".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I know. The provider gets sued.

Really? Seems to me like the very possibility of getting sued means providers will be rather hesitant to perform an abortion except under the most obvious exigency. "Sorry ma'am -- if I do this, I'll get sued and may lose my license".

Sure, scaring off all of the providers is the indirect method of preventing abortions. Are we to believe now that suddenly they care about the women affected and ONLY want to punish the providers - they still have to name who they provided an abortion to, thereby placing what is normally confidential medical information into the public domain.

 

[toobfreak]

"The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully infringes on the constitutional rights of women and violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law. Federal officials are also concerned other states could enact similar laws that would “deprive their citizens of their constitutional rights,” he said.

In other words, shithead, the federal government once again made up a law all by themselves giving THEMSELVES manifest destiny over the very states from which they derive their powers! Even though the constitution gives them no such right nor power. Worse, women have no constitutional "right" to murder a life on their whim just because it turns out inconvenient to do so, idiot.

Put another way, the Fed has interpreted a woman killing her unborn children as a "federally protected constitutional right" to give themselves the power and justification to spend vast amounts of other people's money so they can tell others how to run their lives and you can't wait to buy into it!

COMMIE FASCIST SUCKER.

You're even more stupid and FU than I thought before.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But why do you believe you have the right to do that, particularly if it's not your child?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree fully with all aspects of anti abortion, I'm kinda torn on some aspects of it.

I don't agree with the Texas law, but I do think it's a baby and at a certain point. Before that, I'm kinda fuzzy on the issue.

My point was, however, that at the end of it all, republican anti abortion has never been about controlling women. That narrative just isn't true. If it were, you'd see more of their attempts to "control", but, as far as I can see, you don't have that. It's always been about their respect for the life of the baby. You may not agree with their definition of life, but it's always been about saving babies, and not controlling women.

 

[Stann]

Translation:
You're unhappy with the fact Republicans did sometting you;d take no issue with of the Democrats did it.

But they didn't, they didn't want to stoop as low as Republicans.

 

[Stann]

There is no "Constitutional right" to kill your baby, whether born or not. The existence of this right is a fiction peddled for so long that most accept its existence in spite of no support for this "right" in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution may I confirm the existence of this right? (I won't hold my breath).

Messrs. Biden and Garland wouldn't know a legitimate Constitutional issue if it bit them on the balls

There is no "Constitutional right" to kill your baby, whether born or not. The existence of this right is a fiction peddled for so long that most accept its existence in spite of no support for this "right" in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution may I confirm the existence of this right? (I won't hold my breath).

Messrs. Biden and Garland wouldn't know a legitimate Constitutional issue if it bit them on the balls.

 

[beagle9]

Is your life more important than mine?

Huh ?

 

[Stann]

Do you even know what a human embryo looks like at 6 weeks. It is less than 1/2 inch long, for all practical purposes that looks like a tadpole, a third of its body length is in its tail. It tissues have become differentiated and organs are forming. It has a newly beating heart, the neural tube cord the starting to form the brain in the spinal column, structures necessary to the formation of the eyes and ears are developing, small buds appear that will soon become the arms. In two more weeks it will probably be developed enough to be called a fetus. Throughout all of this, it is not a baby or a child. I understand you want it to be a child, but it is not. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how much you want it to be true, it isn't.

 

[beagle9]

The most idiotic part of this law is that private citizens can attempt to personally enrich themselves to the tune of $10,000 per claim by further traumatizing women and dragging them and their business into open court simply because they've exercised their right to terminate a pregnancy.

I find it extremely interesting that his law passed around the same time that Texas went to Constitutional carry. I don't know about anyone else but I would be documenting all the violations of the criminal codes that the wanna-be plaintiffs would have to engage in in order to pursue a case of this nature and do everything I could to see that they're in jail instead and unable to participate in the civil process.

If all else fails, isn't Texas a stand your ground state? I think most women would be alarmed by being followed around by a bunch of strange men and/or women who may just want to sue them but you really can't be too sure. I sure wouldn't want to be a process server in that state anymore.

Following people around ? I thouguht that was only Maxine Waters game ?

I think they're talking about people suing the company (the so called Planned Parenthood), for violating the law, and not this harassing or following the women around or chastising them like you are inferring. Am I wrong ?