Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

Homo sapiens sapiens

 

Seems that the best way to avoid the abortion thing is to practice reliable BIRTH control.This should be in effect fromthe time anyone is sesually active. This should be taught at home and at school.......as part of learning about the reproductive system...........and resposnsible sexaul activity. It should be science-biology and fact based. And Should minimize many of the myths and "beliefs" that surround the issue.

 

Texas government is forcing pregnant women to have kids.

I didn't make false statement. You however, keep making keep making straw man.

There are two paths for pregnant women. Carry them to terms and give birth, or terminate them.

If you make laws forbidding child birth, you force women to get abortion (kind of like in China some years ago), or you force sterilization on them (like Trump admin did few years ago).
If you make laws forbidding abortion, you for women to give birth. (Texas is like China, but in the opposite way)

Either way, you are controlling the women's bodies, and should be held responsible for raising the children you force women to give birth to.

The state doesn't have to remedy, unless it forces people to do certain things.

Why is this hard to understand?
Get out of the way, take no responsibility.
Meddle, be held accountable.

 

Sadly......humans have a bad habit of dehumanizing themselves.....as is evidenced b their behavior. and attitudes.

 

Wishful thinking will not stop the butcherings from happening, the result of killing R v W.

Given that killing R v W will, in point of fact, increase female butcherings and deaths it is an accurate assessment.

I don't 'think', but I'll report what the four dissenting justices state:

Well, for one thing, this, and I'll let you read the rest of the dissent:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
[...]
Texas’s law delegates to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stage. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164 (1973). And a “State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that “since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period.” Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas’s law does precisely that.
[...]

The new Texas law denies what SCOTUS in R v W has determined is constitutional, i.e., an abortion during the first stage, and, therefore, the law, by denying an abortion during the first stage, and by empowering citizen enforcement of same, is unconstitutional.

Sotomayor, in her scathing criticism of the majority, said that the majority have buried their heads in the sand, given this 'flagrant unconstitutionality'.

So flagrant, indeed, one wonders why you even asked, for surely you thought of reading the dissent before you asked the question, no?

I guess not.

 

Yes, that sounds about right. I believe people who act like this are clearly missing something inside, which makes humans fully human... It's hard to define, but it centers around the concept of a soul.

You have a problem with that?

 

WTF are you talking about? Nobody is "butchering" females, at least not legally.

 

I never said any such thing so why make things up. You were going to make a scientific point. Go on. So far we have a human species.

 

I never ask women who go through trauma to speak of their trauma, unless they volunteer it in conversation, which she never did.

So, I cannot answer the question as I do not know.

 

False

 

You take the risk.

so nothing in the Constitution?

 

So would you support a lot that banned abortions for everyone except for rape victims?

 

No, I just showed that.

Didn't deny that

The poster I answered to wants to stick with science. Let's stay with that.

 

That's the forth time.
It is what it is which I have explained to you and you rejected it. You're the one that is the science denier.

 

You are correct... Texas is forcing women (which is the plural of woman, for another poster) to go out of state to seek normal medical care...

It's sort of too bad there isn't money to be lost here, but I don't think there is...

Well, money will be lost when companies decide to move out of/not relocate to Texastan over this, but that's for a future thread...

https://fortune.com/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-law-business-backlash-match-group-bumble-sb8/

 

That is what Texas is doing. Do you not understand what the topic is here. You also seem to dismiss the male roll in this......other than them making laws to make sure women give birth. A biological function that they can't do.
So if the parents are the only ones that should be responsible for it, what is the problem with going to have a legal medical procedure if they don't.
Your arguments are against each other.

 

I think Texas just passed a law against Plan B.

 

Good luck here. The poster you're answering has no idea what a strawman argument is.

 

I had to use some sort of acknowledgement of your posting to let you know I was posting you. It's a shame that signatures aren't included in the quoted material of other posts.

 

I counted 4 "shoulds" in there.... All solid ideas (although the idea of legit Sex Ed being taught in school in most of the South made me snort), but we need to deal with the "is" at this point.

 

Hey, aren't you our resident South Dakotan??

You know your Stepford Governor is probably next in line with something like this, right??

https://www.keloland.com/news/capitol-news-bureau/governor-orders-review-of-s-d-abortion-laws/

Fortunately, South Dakotans can lean on Minnesota to help out if that happens..

Interestingly, Abortion travel might be a solid little boon for the economy of states willing to take in these refugees (they gotta sleep and eat)

 

It's flagrantly unconstitutional.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...court-inaction.591704/page-54#post-1072912095
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
[...]
Texas’s law delegates to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stage. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164 (1973). And a “State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that “since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period.” Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas’s law does precisely that.
[...]
The new Texas law denies what SCOTUS in R v W has determined is constitutional, i.e., an abortion during the first stage, and, therefore, the law, by denying an abortion during the first stage, and by empowering citizen enforcement of same, is unconstitutional.

Sotomayor, in her scathing criticism of the majority, said that the majority have buried their heads in the sand, given this 'flagrant unconstitutionality'.

So flagrant, indeed, I would be surprised, even a majority conservative court, would allow this law to stand.

I'm sure the conservatives on the court want to shoot down R v W, but if they don't shoot this down, they will give the left easy fodder to do it if and when they gain control of the court, and I'm sure, that since they don't want that to happen, they won't let this fodder for the left, to stand.

That is why I believe they will shoot it down once the arguments are heard, noting that 'flagrant' is the operative word.

 

Yep (spit), Barnyard Barbie is my governor.
My wife (and many others) said the same thing yesterday.
You might be on to something there.

 

Not a question of human origin. But my appendix is of human origin but not a person. Actually, one could even induce totipotency and make a clone of anybody from any nucleated cell. Just because it could, with a LOT of help (from the mothers body or future/developing technology), become a new human/person doesn't mean it is one.

 

LMAO Barnyard Barbie.... I'm may have to steal that (if you won't sue me for 10K)...

Here's the kind of thinking we need more of in this country. There was another case where the Tik Tok community did something great like this, but I forget what it was for...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...texas-abortion-whistleblower-site/5701760001/

"gotta love the kids"

I may have to go submit a few dozen fake complaints myself.... I don't have Apple products so I can't use his script, but Android has pretty active community.... I'll check into that later...