02 Sep 21
Interesting dissent from Sonia Sotomayor:
The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitu-tional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention. Ante, at 1. Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent
02 Sep 21
Sotomayor
In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures
The Act is a breathtaking act of defiance ... 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.
Kagan
The majority "barely bothers to explain its conclusion" and "rewards Texas's scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the state's behalf.
02 Sep 21
By the SCOTUS logic presented here, California could effectively outlaw handguns by allowing strangers to sue anyone who "aids and abets" their purchase. Does anyone think the ultra-conservative justices would shrug and say "too bad, there's absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do!"
02 Sep 21
@wildgrass saidyou do understand pregnancy is completely preventable dont you?
By the SCOTUS logic presented here, California could effectively outlaw handguns by allowing strangers to sue anyone who "aids and abets" their purchase. Does anyone think the ultra-conservative justices would shrug and say "too bad, there's absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do!"
With the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
02 Sep 21
@mott-the-hoople saidWith the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
you do understand pregnancy is completely preventable dont you?
With the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
Please tell us which laws give rape victims a remedy in Texas?
02 Sep 21
@kingdavid403 saidThe same laws that have been on the books, victims have six weeks after penetration to do something about it.
With the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
Please tell us which laws give rape victims a remedy in Texas?
@mott-the-hoople saidNot if they do not know that they are pregnant; which takes at least two weeks to know. It takes up to 12 days for a fertilized egg to implant in a woman's uterine wall causing a pregnancy. That is if the fertilized egg implants; which many do not. This law was just added to the books two days ago. Until then, they had a few months. duh...
The same laws that have been on the books, victims have six weeks after penetration to do something about it.
@mott-the-hoople saidAll fine and good. But irrelevant to the court's decision. The SCOTUS decision does not use that anywhere near that logic. The majority opinion in this ruling have laid out a logic that, by deputizing the citizens to enforce the law, the legal system cannot fault the state for passing unconstitutional laws. What these dissenting opinions seem to be pointing out is a work-around for state legislators to pass any number of laws in which the enforcement is conducted by citizens and not the state.
you do understand pregnancy is completely preventable dont you?
With the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
03 Sep 21
@Mott-The-Hoople
Did you even NOTICE the part where they don't even KNOW they are pregnant at 5 or 6 weeks?
That addition to the Texas law was deliberate, a cynical and cruel law designed to control women.
Tell me, how long will it be before Texas passes laws preventing women from working just like the Taliban?
03 Sep 21
@sonhouse saidThere's a consensus in medicine and society that politicians refuse to acknowledge because it means fewer votes and donations from people who only care about this issue. 22-24 weeks.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Did you even NOTICE the part where they don't even KNOW they are pregnant at 5 or 6 weeks?
That addition to the Texas law was deliberate, a cynical and cruel law designed to control women.
Tell me, how long will it be before Texas passes laws preventing women from working just like the Taliban?
03 Sep 21
@wildgrass saidI had not actually read the dissenting opinions yet. Thanks.
SotomayorIn effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical proceduresThe Act is a breathtaking act of defiance ... The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also ...[text shortened]... deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the state's behalf.
03 Sep 21
@mott-the-hoople saidWhy don't you tell us how pregnancy is preventable.
you do understand pregnancy is completely preventable dont you?
With the exception of force, which the laws allow a remedy.
23 Sep 21
@suzianne saidIf there are twins in a womb, and one is born at 1PM, being thus a baby laying in the bassinet, and the 2nd twin will not be born until 3PM, , WHAT is the status of the little brother left behind in the womb. Zygote? Or, is the brother also a baby?
Babies are already born. There are no "babies in the womb". Apparently you mean a fetus or embryo.
Suzianne?