⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜

[DreamRyderX]

bullshit .. the supreme court is stacked. They knew how they were going to rule before even one iota of evidence was presented.

you've been conned

We'll see who's been conned....as if what 'we'.....you & I.....have any knowledge or affect on what the decision(s) (if there is one) will be......

The decision(s), if any, is out of 'our' hands, & in the hands of the Nine (9) member United States Supreme Court.....

Personally, I like the odds (the 6-3 Ideologically Conservative Court Odds) that I will appreciate what decision(s) these Justices make regarding the Abortion Issue, more than you, & most of those on this forum, will.....

PS......JFYI....regarding all the talk that if the US Supreme Court rules against any portion of Roe v. Wade or against any so called Abortion 'precedent', that Biden & the demon-RATS will "Pack" the Court to undo any such decision.....well, they can't.......

Presently, the US Senate is evenly split 50-50, & the demon-RATS ace in the hole VP Kamalatoe Harris could break a tie in favor for the demon-Rats, except Joe Manchin, a democrat, is on record that he will side with the Republicans against any such "Packing" attempts......effectively giving the Republicans a majority of 51-49, enough to crush any Biden SCOTUS nomination.

 

[HBS Guy]

And America sinks while China rises.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Personally, I like the odds (the 6-3 Ideologically Conservative Court Odds) that I will appreciate what decision(s) these Justices make regarding the Abortion Issue, more than you, & most of those on this forum, will.....

So, does that mean that you will accept the decision of the courts? Even if the court reaffirms the Roe and Casey decisions?

Especially, since their decision will be based only on the undo-burden clause for women, the viability issue for the fetus, the reversal of constitutional precedence(watershed), and the liberty, due process, and privacy guarantees already established within the Constitution.

I can't wait for their decision. Unfortunately, thousands of women may not be here to hear the results. I guess you don't care if the court is ideologically stacked! Just as long as it is ideologically stacked in your favor! I didn't think that selfishness was a part of any religion.

I think that the Justices will see, that they are the ones being conned. The votes will be more like 8 - 1 in favor of abortion rights for women.

 

[HBS Guy]

Hope so.

 

[DreamRyderX]

..........I think that the Justices will see, that they are the ones being conned. The votes will be more like 7 - 1 in favor of abortion rights for women.

Hope so.

Well, in the mean time feel free to speculate on, & on, & on........Texas' 'Heartbeat' Abortion Law is still in force......saving the lives of hundreds of the most vulnerable humans......day after day.......maybe not all, but far more than the day before it was enacted.

 

[HBS Guy]

Bet it saves buggerall lives.

 

[DreamRyderX]

..

Well, the Texas Law has been in effect & saving lives for over 90+ days now.....Since September 1, 2021

The Texas Heartbeat Act Is Saving 100+ Babies’ Lives
Every Single Day!​

Source: THE FEDERALIST

Right now, more than 100 babies are being saved from abortion every day in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Act is currently enforceable, even as the abortion industry and Biden administration attempt to thwart it. There has been much legal back-and-forth and misrepresentation of this life-saving law, particularly on the unique way in which it is enforced. Let’s cut through that confusion.

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits elective abortion after the preborn child’s heartbeat is detected. Those who commit an abortion after this biological marker in the child’s development, as well as those who knowingly aid and abet in that illegal abortion, can be sued. The lynchpin that has allowed the law to take effect is that the state is not allowed to enforce the law; rather, it is the responsibility of private individuals to hold the abortion industry accountable for following the law.

So far in Texas, we are seeing the abortion industry comply with the new law. Eighty-five percent of abortions that previously would have been occurring in our state are now illegal. More than 100 babies per day are being given a chance at life. There have not been any credible assertions of violation. This means that the unique threat of private lawsuits under this law is successfully saving babies........continued

..

So, feel free to do the math if you wish.

I already have......My conservative calculations follow below:

Ninety Days times One Hundred Little Lives per day......The estimates are above 100 per day, but to make the numbers easier to understand for the math challenged amongst us, 100 is nice & even.

90 x 100 = a minimum of 9,000 little lives have been saved since the law took effect in Texas.

If you dispute this, prove....don't just say......you prove otherwise.

Irregardless of number, much to the Pro-Death Left's chagrin, little lives are being saved in Texas because of this wonderful & unique legislation (other States are passing their own Heartbeat Laws, similar to the Texas Law).

The Pro-Death Left is absolutely apoplectic because they are unable to stop The Heartbeat Law from saving lives!
..

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

..

Well, the Texas Law has been in effect & saving lives for over 90+ days now.....Since September 1, 2021

The Texas Heartbeat Act Is Saving 100+ Babies’ Lives
Every Single Day!​

Source: THE FEDERALIST

So, feel free to do the math if you wish.

I already have......My conservative calculations follow below:

Ninety Days times One Hundred Little Lives per day......The estimates are above 100 per day, but to make the numbers easier to understand for the math challenged amongst us, 100 is nice & even.

90 x 100 = a minimum of 9,000 little lives have been saved since the law took effect in Texas.

If you dispute this, prove....don't just say......you prove otherwise.

Irregardless of number, much to the Pro-Death Left's chagrin, little lives are being saved in Texas because of this wonderful & unique legislation (other States are passing their own Heartbeat Laws, similar to the Texas Law).

The Pro-Death Left is absolutely apoplectic because they are unable to stop The Heartbeat Law from saving lives!
..

One of the things that makes propaganda effective, is if you just keep it simple. The Nazis did this to characterize the Jews. Anti-Abortionist use newborn babies instead of aborted embryos to forward their propaganda. Obviously showing human aborted embryos, would be counter-productive to their message. People would just turn off, after seeing just how non-human they really are. So they must use new born infants, to appeal to the pathos of cuteness. And, then use terms like murder and innocence, when neither applies! Devious!

At 6 or 7 weeks of pregnancy, if a doctor uses a stethoscope to listen for a fetal heartbeat, he would hear NOTHING!! Firstly, because there is no fetal heartbeat at 6-7 weeks, because it is an embryo, not a fetus. And, there is no heartbeat, because there is no fully developed heart. A blatant lie.

Secondly, what you do hear from a 6-7 week old embryo, is a flutter. And, only by using an ultrasound. This flutter is not causes by any beat of the embryo's heart(not developed yet). It is caused by the firing of specialized nerve cells that will eventually become the pacemaker for controlling the beat of the fetus's heart(sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve cells). The AV nodes.

Remember, cardiac muscle cells will contract WITHOUT any stimuli(myogenic). So the mother will never hear this flutter of nerve cells before 6 weeks! And, in most cases not even know that she is pregnant(other than a missed period). Another devious tactic by anti-abortionists.

But good news. The supreme court was able to see through the State's ruse, designed to make a mockery of federal oversight. That is, the State paying bounty-hunters $10K, and all legal fees, for all successful legal outcomes. Or, the state allowing only the pregnant women alone, to mount their own lawsuit against the state.

This deviousness was knocked down in a 8 - 1 vote. Providers and other pro-choice groups CAN now bring class action lawsuits to the district courts in the state. This first phase was successful to end this madness, by right-wing fanatics.

 

[HBS Guy]

Let us hope this crap continues to unwind.

Unwanted lives created

Womens’ lives destroyed by unwanted pregnancies

Deprivation of liberty of women

All because some men feel threatened by womens’ control over their own bodies.

DRX use of overly emotive language just makes it clear this whole thing is about control over women.

 

[DreamRyderX]

..

Why the Latest Supreme Court Ruling
Is a Disaster for Abortion Rights​

Source: The Rolling Stone via Y!

Some people may be describing Friday’s Supreme Court decision as a win for the abortion clinics, but don’t be fooled. The decision is a disaster for abortion patients, abortion rights, and constitutional rights more generally. The Court’s five most conservative Justices have paved the way not only for the end of Roe v. Wade, but for states to copy S.B. 8 to insulate denials of all constitutional rights from federal court review. There are no two ways about this: It’s a horrendous decision.

The short background here is that S.B. 8 is the Texas law that prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy but does so through the novel method of allowing any individual to sue to enforce the ban rather than having state officials enforce it. Private individuals can sue doctors who perform abortions after six weeks, or anyone who aids or abets the doctor, for $10,000 or more. As a result, since S.B. 8 took effect on Sept. 1, abortion access in Texas has been virtually non-existent, and patients are either self-managing their own abortions, carrying their pregnancy to term, or traveling long distances to other states to get an abortion.

Texas abortion clinics and the United States filed separate lawsuits in federal court to stop S.B. 8. The big problem the lawyers filing these lawsuits faced was determining whom to sue. This was by design. The people who crafted S.B. 8 wrote the bill with the private enforcement mechanism because the clinics would then not be able to sue state officials to stop enforcement, and would rather have to wait for lawsuits under S.B. 8 to challenge it. Waiting to be sued is risky, though, because the lawsuit might be successful, and the doctor might lose their license over the lawsuit.

The two different lawsuits took different approaches to this puzzle. The clinic lawsuit sued Texas judges and court clerks under the theory that they could be stopped from even accepting and hearing these cases. They also sued the Texas Attorney General and health licensing officials claiming they have licensing power over the doctors. The United States sued Texas as a whole (something the clinics are not allowed to do), arguing that anyone who sues under S.B. 8 is an agent of the state of Texas.

Today’s decisions from the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs in these cases were allowed to pursue these particular defendants. In the United States’ case, the Court dismissed the appeal, saying that it should have never heard the case in the first place. As a result, the United States’ case goes back to the lower courts with no new guidance from the Supreme Court and an uncertain future timeline.

The clinics’ case was the consequential one. In that case, the five conservative Justices threw out the cases against the judges, clerks, and the attorney general. However, a different group of eight Justices (all except Justice Clarence Thomas) permitted the case to go forward against the four state officials responsible for heath-care licensing. The Court held that they were not protected by the immunity doctrines the other Texas officials could invoke and that they had enforcement authority not under S.B. 8 but under other provisions of Texas law.

Because the case can move forward, some outlets are describing this as a partial win for the providers and for abortion rights. But those headlines do not fully capture what’s going on here, because Friday’s decision is extremely troubling for almost everyone involved.

First, S.B. 8 remains in effect with no obvious path to ever being put on hold. Even though the Court allowed the lawsuit to move forward against the licensing officials, the Court did not stop S.B. 8. Rather, it sent the case to the lower courts to sort out what the ruling Friday means. That means more delay, something the state of Texas can delay even further by asking the Supreme Court to reconsider (which it is allowed to do). But even when the case eventually gets back to the trial court, the court will likely be able to stop only the licensing officials from enforcing S.B. 8. It is hard to see how the court could prevent the S.B. 8 lawsuits by private individuals which is the real threat of S.B. 8.

And even if the district court comes up with some theory how to do that, the appeal will go to the Fifth Circuit, a notoriously anti-abortion conservative court that has already thwarted several challenges to S.B. 8. That court would likely reverse or put on hold the district court’s ruling and delay any real resolution about S.B. 8 for months or longer. Meanwhile, patients continue to be denied their constitutional rights and suffer accordingly. And eventually, abortion rights might no longer be protected under the Constitution.

Second, by so seriously limiting the challenge to S.B. 8, the Court’s conservative majority has clearly signaled what it’s going to do in the other abortion case before it, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and the continued protection of abortion as a constitutional right and will be decided by the end of June.

Unstated in Friday’s decision is any mention of the future of Roe. However, even though none of the words in the opinion say anything about it, it’s clear that Roe and the right to abortion are not long for this world. If a majority of Justices on the Court thought abortion was a protected fundamental right, they would not have so drastically abdicated federal court responsibility for protecting that fundamental right. Put differently, if this were a case about guns or Christianity, a right the conservative Justices care deeply about, would any reasonable person think the Justices would have allowed S.B. 8 to continue?

Third, the Court has given the green light to more S.B. 8-type laws, touching on abortion and any other constitutional rights. By dismissing all defendants except the licensing officials, the Court has said that an S.B. 8-style law that removes all public officials from enforcement would completely escape constitutional review in federal court. Texas can now amend S.B. 8 to remove the licensing officials from being involved and the case would dissolve. And other states now have instructions on how to write their laws to avoid federal court review completely — just leave out all official enforcement.

The highlighted parts are particularly important..............

 

[HBS Guy]

And better contraceptives, the morning-after pill and backyard abortionists mean the Act is pretty much moot—but that is OK but it really is about control of women, not abortion law.

 

[SethBullock]

I really hate to comment on this subject because nothing anyone writes is going to sway anyone's opinion. Of all the topics I can think of, this is the one where people's opinions are set in stone and will not change.

Pro-choice people believe that this is an issue of a woman's reproductive rights, control over her own body, and if the pregnancy is unwanted, her right to terminate it. "My body, my choice".

Pro-life people believe that an unborn fetus is human life at some point. Some pro-life people think it is human life at the point of fertilization, and some believe it is human life at some later stage of pregnancy. Pro-life people don't regard an unborn as being merely a part of the mother's body, but instead, the body of an individual human being. They do not believe that the mother's wish to terminate the pregnancy outweighs the unborn child's right to live.

These two opposing points of view will always be in conflict with each other. I foresee no resolution to it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was still an issue of contention 100 years from now.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Ninety Days times One Hundred Little Lives per day......The estimates are above 100 per day, but to make the numbers easier to understand for the math challenged amongst us, 100 is nice & even.

90 x 100 = a minimum of 9,000 little lives have been saved since the law took effect in Texas.

If you dispute this, prove....don't just say......you prove otherwise.

Irregardless of number, much to the Pro-Death Left's chagrin, little lives are being saved in Texas because of this wonderful & unique legislation (other States are passing their own Heartbeat Laws, similar to the Texas Law).

The Pro-Death Left is absolutely apoplectic because they are unable to stop The Heartbeat Law from saving lives!

No one is Pro-Death on abortion. People are Pro-Choice. Are you, an "Anti-Constitution", or, "Anti-Rights" activist??

Simply making up your own math does not make the outcome true. Just because you believe that there are 9,000 fewer abortions being performed in Texas, don't make it so! There might be a lot more still being performed. Especially, since expected mothers can still self-medicate, travel to other states, or seek out backyard butchers. But, lets not let reality get in the way of our one-dimensional fantasy, right? Remember, these off-the-books- abortions ARE NOT BEING REGISTERED!! Have you ever thought, that many people are sympathetic to the mothers, and support abortion??

Tell anti-abortionists that a fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks and they will believe you. Even though science tells you that there is no fetus, let alone a developed heart.

Tell anti-abortionists that the unborn is viable at 6 weeks and 15 weeks, and they will believe it. Even though science and the stats disproves this.

Tell anti-abortionists that the embryo is a miniature innocent human person, and they will believe it. Even though science shows that the embryo itself, can potentially become any animal in the animal kingdom. If not for certain hormones, and specific genetic traits.

Tell anti-abortionists that God tells them that all life is precious and created by Him, and they will believe it. Even though the Bible is certainly PRO-ABORTION, and PRO-INFANTICIDE, PRO-FILICIDE, and PRO-NEONATICIDE!! With the verses to prove it!

Tell anti-abortionists that the life of the pea-sized growth inside of a woman's womb, is more important than her own life. And, they will believe it. Even though these misguided fanatics play zero role before, during, and after the mother's pregnancy. Or, provide any emotional or financial support in the rearing of the child or family.

Tell anti-abortionists that the State has the right to force all women to carry their pregnancies to term, because 20% of society believes that they are morally right, and the rest of society is morally wrong. And, they will believe it.

Why? Because they want to believe that they are right. They need to believe that they are morally superior to others. They need to believe that their cause is just, no matter how many millions of BORN real humans will have to suffer. And, for those who are just projecting their own latent "pregnancy envy" issues. If they can't have it, then they must control it!!

Does your math also include an increase of maternal deaths, pregnancy complications, family crisis's, and the rate of adoptions? Of course not!!

Surely you are NOT this one-dimensional? This is not a game!! Both sides suffer in every case of abortion.

The highlighted parts are particularly important..............

Then you should read them. This 8-1 decision, is just the start. There is no question that the Texas abortion law violates the Constitutional rights of women. But this was not on the court's agenda to decide. Texas wanted to exclude any plaintiffs from challenging this law, except for the pregnant woman(who they knew couldn't). That failed almost unanimously. The court saw through this charade. Except for the court's living cadaver, Thomas. Next, we move on to the issues of viability, liberty, and undo burden on women, in the Mississippi law.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

I really hate to comment on this subject because nothing anyone writes is going to sway anyone's opinion. Of all the topics I can think of, this is the one where people's opinions are set in stone and will not change.

Pro-choice people believe that this is an issue of a woman's reproductive rights, control over her own body, and if the pregnancy is unwanted, her right to terminate it. "My body, my choice".

Pro-life people believe that an unborn fetus is human life at some point. Some pro-life people think it is human life at the point of fertilization, and some believe it is human life at some later stage of pregnancy. Pro-life people don't regard an unborn as being merely a part of the mother's body, but instead, the body of an individual human being. They do not believe that the mother's wish to terminate the pregnancy outweighs the unborn child's right to live.

These two opposing points of view will always be in conflict with each other. I foresee no resolution to it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was still an issue of contention 100 years from now.

I'm afraid that this is not simply two people having opposing views, Seth. If those who believe that all life is sacred, and that life begins at the moment of conception, then they have the right NOT to have an abortion. No one is stopping them. Or, is making laws to force them to terminate their pregnancy.

But we are talking about people who are actuating their moral beliefs in the form of political pressure to influence policy and law that will effect everyone. That is, they are forcing their own moral beliefs onto our government leaders, and forcing us all to share their beliefs. Surely you can see the slippery slope, that catering to these minority beliefs can lead to? The constitution is suppose to protect us from the will of these vocal minority, from imposing their will onto the majority.

If you believe that God created everything, then that is your personal religious belief. And, you can practice that belief anyway to want. Until it arrives at my doorstep. Or, in my children's school. Or, in the science classrooms. Or, where I work or play. This also applies to the abortion issue. As long as your beliefs don't directly effect me, then believe in anything you like!!

 

[SethBullock]

I'm afraid that this is not simply two people having opposing views, Seth. If those who believe that all life is sacred, and that life begins at the moment of conception, then they have the right NOT to have an abortion. No one is stopping them. Or, is making laws to force them to terminate their pregnancy.

But we are talking about people who are actuating their moral beliefs in the form of political pressure to influence policy and law that will effect everyone. That is, they are forcing their own moral beliefs onto our government leaders, and forcing us all to share their beliefs. Surely you can see the slippery slope, that catering to these minority beliefs can lead to? The constitution is suppose to protect us from the will of these vocal minority, from imposing their will onto the majority.

If you believe that God created everything, then that is your personal religious belief. And, you can practice that belief anyway to want. Until it arrives at my doorstep. Or, in my children's school. Or, in the science classrooms. Or, where I work or play. This also applies to the abortion issue. As long as your beliefs don't directly effect me, then believe in anything you like!!

I understand what you’re saying, but to a pro- lifer, there is a false equivalency in that argument.

If your neighbor smokes pot, it doesn’t affect you. If your neighbor marries someone of the same gender, it doesn’t affect you. So why have laws against smoking pot or same sex marriage? If you don’t like those things, don’t do them.

The reason a pro-lifer would reject that argument in the abortion debate as a false equivalency is that they think of abortion as the wrongful taking of innocent human life. To them, that argument is like saying we can legalize murder because it doesn’t affect anyone else. But they believe that it does affect someone else. The “someone else” is the unborn child.

No one on either side of the debate thinks we should legalize murder. So the argument revolves around other questions, and I just see no resolution to it. Like I said, 100 years from now, it will still be one of those divisive, hot button issues.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

I understand what you’re saying, but to a pro- lifer, there is a false equivalency in that argument.

If your neighbor smokes pot, it doesn’t affect you. If your neighbor marries someone of the same gender, it doesn’t affect you. So why have laws against smoking pot or same sex marriage? If you don’t like those things, don’t do them.

The reason a pro-lifer would reject that argument in the abortion debate as a false equivalency is that they think of abortion as the wrongful taking of innocent human life. To them, that argument is like saying we can legalize murder because it doesn’t affect anyone else. But they believe that it does affect someone else. The “someone else” is the unborn child.

No one on either side of the debate thinks we should legalize murder. So the argument revolves around other questions, and I just see no resolution to it. Like I said, 100 years from now, it will still be one of those divisive, hot button issues.

With all due respect Seth, I think that you should re-read this entire post. And, understand the difference between a false equivalence, and a false-analogy.

So, before I respond, please have a think about what I have actually said, and how you have actually responded. You are better than this.

 

[SethBullock]

With all due respect Seth, I think that you should re-read this entire post. And, understand the difference between a false equivalence, and a false-analogy.

So, before I respond, please have a think about what I have actually said, and how you have actually responded. You are better than this.

Ok, a false analogy, if you prefer.

All I’m saying is that I see no resolution to this debate, and that is why I usually avoid it. It doesn’t seem to matter what argument anyone makes on this topic, either pro or con. People’s positions on this are set in stone.

 

[HBS Guy]

Even Ireland legalised same sex marriage and abortion—by referendum. Not ideologues passing acts in a Parliament. US is going against the trend and will hurt itself. Deprivation of liberty is never good.

 

[DreamRyderX]

All I’m saying is that I see no resolution to this debate, and that is why I usually avoid it. It doesn’t seem to matter what argument anyone makes on this topic, either pro or con. People’s positions on this are set in stone.

I agree.

Come hell or high water, my position on Abortion is etched in granite.

That said, I firmly believe those that disagree with me have the God given Right to express their disagreements with whatever I say.......& I respect their Right to disagree.....even though in my heart & soul I know they are 100% wrong.

This topic was created with the thought that the political/constitutional aspects of how the United States Supreme Court would work on returning this issue back to the People, & let the People decide, via each individual State, what they do or do not want.

IMHO, this issue isn't about a Constitutional Right to Abortion, for the Federal Government to decide.........it's an individual State's issue, where at that level only the States can best honor the wants & needs of the People.

Enough said, I should have known better how this would turn out, & you're 100% correct Seth.

All this topic has accomplished is it gave two factions, diametrically opposed factions, a place to sound out their differences regarding abortion, both knowing that there WILL NEVER BE a common ground to agree upon regarding this contentious issue.....outside of the eternal fact that they completely disagree.

So, I would like to leave you all with a word from the highly respected Constitutional & Criminal Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz:

​

..

 

[SethBullock]

I agree.

Come hell or high water, my position on Abortion is etched in granite.

That said, I firmly believe those that disagree with me have the God given Right to express their disagreements with whatever I say.......& I respect their Right to disagree.....even though in my heart & soul I know they are 100% wrong.

This topic was created with the thought that the political/constitutional aspects of how the United States Supreme Court would work on returning this issue back to the People, & let the People decide, via each individual State, what they do or do not want.

IMHO, this issue isn't about a Constitutional Right to Abortion, for the Federal Government to decide.........it's an individual State's issue, where at that level only the States can best honor the wants & needs of the People.

Enough said, I should have known better how this would turn out, & you're 100% correct Seth.

All this topic has accomplished is it gave two factions, diametrically opposed factions, a place to sound out their differences regarding abortion, both knowing that there WILL NEVER BE a common ground to agree upon regarding this contentious issue.....outside of the eternal fact that they completely disagree.

So, I would like to leave you all with a word from the highly respected Constitutional & Criminal Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz:

​

..

Dershowitz is right. I have always thought that the 10th Amendment was the constitutional answer to the question of abortion.