Texas abortion law critics warn conservatives of unintended consequences

[Dial H For Hero]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-texas-abortion-law-critics-100727906.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As abortion providers backed by President Joe Biden's administration prepare for Monday's U.S. Supreme Court arguments in their challenge to a near-total ban on the procedure in Texas, they have found an unlikely ally: a right-leaning gun rights group.

A "friend of the court" brief filed in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition against Republican-governed Texas illustrates how the law's unique structure - enforcement by private individuals, not the state - has alarmed advocates for all kinds of constitutionally protected rights.

Some conservatives are warning that similar laws could be crafted by liberals targeting issues important to the right.

A law written like the one in Texas to impede courts from ruling on constitutionality before it takes effect could be used, for example, to take aim at constitutionally protected activities including gun rights, religious practice or free speech. Abortion is protected under the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, and subsequent decisions.

(Excerpt)

[hurple]

1. My prediction

SCOTUS will uphold the TX law, along party lines with maybe Roberts not joining in. But, they will also add a paragraph in the ruling stating that this type of law can ONLY be used in cases of abortion, thus keeping it from being used against guns, religion, etc.

[carpetbagger]

8. I'll bet you...

They overturn Roe with the Mississippi case, saying they're not, and they overturn the Texas law on a narrow basis that doesn't address the constitutionality of bounty laws. Texas won't care, since they would just pass a "normal" law against abortion.

[The Magistrate]

2. Quite True, Sir

It would be a good thing to do.

[KentuckyWoman]

3. Oh I'd love it if I could get a $10,000 paycheck for

Suing megachurch preachers and anyone even remotely associated with TV evangelism.
Suing anyone anywhere even remotely associated with guns and gun stuff. (including police)

Not gonna happen ... but oh the thought of it makes me smile.

[SergeStorms]

6. I want to be the first....

to collect $1million in bounties on assault style weapons. 😁 Anyone with me?

[unblock]

4. IMHO, I think the supreme court will dodge the abortion question but strike down the law

The right wing doesn't actually need this particular law. They can oppress women in many other ways, they can make abortion effectively illegal in many other ways.

I think the courts will find it unconstitutional because of the vigilante construct. Without a real justification for standing or real damage to the private person who brings the case, the vigilante construct really just disguises a state interest in preventing something as a private interest in that, which it clearly is not.

In other words, it's just a trick to dodge what is unconstitutional for a state to do by deputizing private people to do the job for the state.

Now, the right wing might be cool with this in the case of abortion, but the courts will see it as a terrible precedent.

So they will strike this law down and further erode wonen's choice rights some other day.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I agree with you on both points

If you think about it, the law, this type of law, makes the SC irrelevant. And would turn municipal courts into a circus. Depending on how the Mississippi case goes, the court may end up jumpjng up and down on reproductive rights of women.

[azureblue]

7. True

The vigilante part is the problem. If they pass it as is, then that opens the door for anyone to act as a law enforcement person. And that in itself is an attack on the entire legal system. Taken to an extreme, it can mean that anyone can arrest anyone for anything they deem as illegal. Not even the courts would be safe - a person could "arrest" a judge he feels is acting illegally. Or a cop.

[Hortensis]

10. A big, direct challenge to Roe itself is to be heard on December 1.

One month from now. The State of Mississippi is asking the court to overturn Roe in its entirety. MS law prohibits abortions after 15 weeks.

The new hard-conservative and religious right majority's decision to take this case is suspected to be a bad sign for reproductive rights. As is the court's temporarily letting stand the TX abomination.

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. NGL, I'd be fuckin' surprised if the Supremes overturned Roe, Judge McDrunk and whoeverthefuck aside

The Reps are bold, but the ramifications stretch far beyond their limited, baseline understanding of law.

[Hortensis]

12. I believe that is SO true. But ideologues aren't only driven by

what would seem to be their own best interests. Republican voters are famous for sacrificing obvious self interest for their "principles," and they do still imagine they have some.

Every year their betraying Republican leaders behave incredibly stupidly and have mostly managed to keep getting elected by massive lies and demonization of us. These days we're eating children, you know. Or at least our "elites" are. The rest of us have to make do with hamburger or chickpeas but are all in for them anyway.

So, we're going to see...!

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. I can't get into this in depth, but you're not wrong.

Suffice to say, the Reps are doing what we expect Reps to do. I just wish Dems weren't doing similar, or allowing them to do it, even with complete (Yes, 50/50+1 is still Complete) control. :/

Anyways. Either way, I don't expect them to strike down Roe. Not here not now, and not in this circumstance.

[Hortensis]

14. Hope you're right. It'd mean they were still afraid of us,

and their own voters. I mostly expect they wouldn't declare Social Security and other big federal programs unconstitutional until we were no longer able to vote them out of power.

Control of the senate requires a minimum of 60 votes. Without control of the senate, there is no control of congress. That is a grim reality we see acted out every day.

We do have a bare, technical majority in the senate due to our tiebreaker VP. That's pure gold compared to the alternative of being the minority party, but control is an unreachable distance away.

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. I've no doubt this will be stricken with a vengeance.

As a 2nd Amendment "Absolutist" (If I must declare), I fight equally for all rights, as should any "Consitutional" institution; The rights of women and their Uteri shall not be infringed, by tax, by law, or by any other implement. As it should be for any given right, be it abortion, the 2nd, or voting rights; The rights of people SHALL NOT be infringed, and we'll be damned if we let it happen regardless of circumstance.

Long live the right to choice and bodily autonomy.

(Brief and hopefully unnecessary aside; I would not get an abortion nor would I choose to get one if given the chance, but as a male, it will never be my choice; Thus, I err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility/bodily autonomy, regardless of circumstance.)

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Soon we will all be deputized as Repo Men or Women and charged with enforcement

I think insurance agents and companies are absolutely salivating at the size and quantity of Umbrella Personal Liability policies they will be able to write.