A brief refresher on legal abortion in the USA
August 31, 2021 11:01 PM Subscribe
Roe vs. Wade (1973): The Supreme Court case that held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. (Link also covers Abortion in the Supreme Court Post-Roe)
previously
Presently: In the US and need an abortion? Find a provider. Try typing some scenarios into this handy abortion finder.
previously
Presently: In the US and need an abortion? Find a provider. Try typing some scenarios into this handy abortion finder.
The phrase "Post-Roe" has a really ominous tone at this point.
posted by Scattercat at 1:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 1:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
There are a few things I've never understood about opposition to abortion. First, as of today, or at least as I read, the abortion rate is significantly lower than the immediate post Roe v. Wade period. Seems to me like easy access to diverse contraception is doing its job. Sooner or later I could see the rates dropping to a negligible level, in part because very few people are interested in having children. Why make such a fuss when this problem may take care of itself?
Years ago I read an article here about how the evangelical championing of the "pro-life" cause was born of the crisis of losing the fight to uphold segregation. They took on abortion as a substitute to maintain their claim to moral superiority, despite not having made much noise prior. Why this and not any other issue?
This segues into my other question: If African Americans are disproportionately likely to have abortions, why would former segregationists want to ban the service? Do they think this will bring about the "race war" some of them quietly yearn for? Are they of the false impression that white birth rates will also rebound, in such a way that it offsets any other detriments in their mind? It doesn't make sense.
posted by constantinescharity at 1:37 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Years ago I read an article here about how the evangelical championing of the "pro-life" cause was born of the crisis of losing the fight to uphold segregation. They took on abortion as a substitute to maintain their claim to moral superiority, despite not having made much noise prior. Why this and not any other issue?
This segues into my other question: If African Americans are disproportionately likely to have abortions, why would former segregationists want to ban the service? Do they think this will bring about the "race war" some of them quietly yearn for? Are they of the false impression that white birth rates will also rebound, in such a way that it offsets any other detriments in their mind? It doesn't make sense.
posted by constantinescharity at 1:37 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Good timing to leave Afghanistan, since we have our own homegrown Taliban here in Texas.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
> It doesn't make sense.
Because it's about control, not the santicity of life.
posted by mrzarquon at 3:34 AM on September 1, 2021 [85 favorites]
Because it's about control, not the santicity of life.
posted by mrzarquon at 3:34 AM on September 1, 2021 [85 favorites]
First, as of today, or at least as I read, the abortion rate is significantly lower than the immediate post Roe v. Wade period. Seems to me like easy access to diverse contraception is doing its job. Sooner or later I could see the rates dropping to a negligible level, in part because very few people are interested in having children. Why make such a fuss when this problem may take care of itself?
Do you trust that the pro-life supporters also know about the abortion rate having dropped? Or is it perhaps more likely that all they know is a much more simplistic "abortion still is a thing that exists and we don't like it"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:49 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Do you trust that the pro-life supporters also know about the abortion rate having dropped? Or is it perhaps more likely that all they know is a much more simplistic "abortion still is a thing that exists and we don't like it"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:49 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
It's not really about life; it's about birth. The same people who protest outside abortion clinics are typically the most vocally against anything to help the child/parents after it's born. Early childhood education, school meals, comprehensive health services.... You name it, they'll attack it.
Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to go after contraception next. Until the ACA, contraception wasn't always covered, and there's been plenty of challenges chipping away at that mandate in the last ten years.
posted by basalganglia at 4:00 AM on September 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to go after contraception next. Until the ACA, contraception wasn't always covered, and there's been plenty of challenges chipping away at that mandate in the last ten years.
posted by basalganglia at 4:00 AM on September 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to go after contraception next.
There are some on the anti-abortion side who see chemical contraception (i.e. the pill, implants, etc.) as performing abortions, as well. So, yeah, absolutely they will.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:08 AM on September 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
There are some on the anti-abortion side who see chemical contraception (i.e. the pill, implants, etc.) as performing abortions, as well. So, yeah, absolutely they will.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:08 AM on September 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
If African Americans are disproportionately likely to have abortions, why would former segregationists want to ban the service? Do they think this will bring about the "race war" some of them quietly yearn for? Are they of the false impression that white birth rates will also rebound, in such a way that it offsets any other detriments in their mind? It doesn't make sense.
My wife spent over twenty years working for the largest adoption agency in Indiana. Their experience, vis-a-vis who gets abortions, was the opposite. Women of color were overwhelmingly the ones who opted to carry the baby to term, then give it up for adoption. White women were the ones who most commonly opted for abortion. Dunno if that follows national trends, though.
And, yes, there is a strong part of the anti-abortion crowd who do see abortion as diminishing the white race's numbers in the face of the growing non-white population. They see abortion as part of a supposed white-genocide being carried-out against them. Terrifying stuff.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:16 AM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
My wife spent over twenty years working for the largest adoption agency in Indiana. Their experience, vis-a-vis who gets abortions, was the opposite. Women of color were overwhelmingly the ones who opted to carry the baby to term, then give it up for adoption. White women were the ones who most commonly opted for abortion. Dunno if that follows national trends, though.
And, yes, there is a strong part of the anti-abortion crowd who do see abortion as diminishing the white race's numbers in the face of the growing non-white population. They see abortion as part of a supposed white-genocide being carried-out against them. Terrifying stuff.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:16 AM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
The thing you need to understand about antichoicers is that they view a woman freely choosing to have sex and not suffering any negative consequences as her "getting away with it." That's why the fringier ones go all full-quiver, Duggar-style on not only no contraception but as many kids as possible.
Women's sexual freedom scares them. Because that is power, and they are misogynists who don't think women should have that power.
posted by emjaybee at 5:53 AM on September 1, 2021 [48 favorites]
Women's sexual freedom scares them. Because that is power, and they are misogynists who don't think women should have that power.
posted by emjaybee at 5:53 AM on September 1, 2021 [48 favorites]
Conservative anti-abortion sentiment isn't about abortion at all. It's about attracting voters.
Think about it: The Republicans have had majorities on Congress on numerous occasions in the past 40 years and have never seriously tried to overturn Roe legislatively or otherwise create a nationwide abortion ban. The truth is that Democrats were the party of the working class (because unions) and smaller and smaller percentages of people were vibing with conservative economic ideologies. Abortion became a hook for Republicans to attract Christian voters, even if they were voting against their own economic interests.
That's why most of the anti-abortion playbook doesn't make logical sense. It depends on constantly being the dog chasing the car -- if they catch the car, the game is over. That is even more true since they've lost gay marriage as a similar canard.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 5:55 AM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
Think about it: The Republicans have had majorities on Congress on numerous occasions in the past 40 years and have never seriously tried to overturn Roe legislatively or otherwise create a nationwide abortion ban. The truth is that Democrats were the party of the working class (because unions) and smaller and smaller percentages of people were vibing with conservative economic ideologies. Abortion became a hook for Republicans to attract Christian voters, even if they were voting against their own economic interests.
That's why most of the anti-abortion playbook doesn't make logical sense. It depends on constantly being the dog chasing the car -- if they catch the car, the game is over. That is even more true since they've lost gay marriage as a similar canard.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 5:55 AM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted; this discussion is touching on a whole tangle of things including really awful stuff, genocide, slavery, etc and I want to just remind everyone, please take extra care when framing comments around what racists or other -ists think. Please don't just repeat their dehumanizing terminology or framing in order to implicitly criticize it; you can make your point without using their terms. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:05 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:05 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
I find it weird that from a scientific standpoint the government has always asserted life begins at birth. The laws and regulations surrounding animal research very clearly state that investigators must obtain permission for all individual vertebrate species used. In rats or mice for example, for accounting purposes, sacrificing a pregnant dam to harvest fetal tissue counts as use of one animal. Not one plus however many fetuses were removed. If the fetuses are used immediately after birth, however, each is counted. The rule is pretty clear - if the pup is independent of the mother, it’s an individual.
It just always struck me as odd that no one had ever tried to use that line of reasoning to establish federal precedent for determining when life should be considered to have begun. Sure, rats aren’t people. Yes, the pro-life crowd will very likely overlap with the people who don’t consider animals to have souls (or don’t consider people to be animals).
It’s not even the only precedent. The US Census counts individuals, for example, it doesn’t count pregnant women as two persons. I’m not saying any of these are GOOD arguments, just that they are established federal rules and have gone unquestioned for decades. Legal decisions have hung on less in the past.
The whole anti-abortion movement is endlessly frustrating. If they were truly against abortion they’d be pro-contraception. Instead, they’re anti-science, anti-women, and as pointed out upthread really and truly lose all interest in protecting children after they’re born. Carrying a child to term is not to protect the child, it’s to punish the woman for being immodest and immoral. If that wasn’t clear before, the push for elimination of exceptions for rape and incest ought to be enough proof that this was never about the babies.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
It just always struck me as odd that no one had ever tried to use that line of reasoning to establish federal precedent for determining when life should be considered to have begun. Sure, rats aren’t people. Yes, the pro-life crowd will very likely overlap with the people who don’t consider animals to have souls (or don’t consider people to be animals).
It’s not even the only precedent. The US Census counts individuals, for example, it doesn’t count pregnant women as two persons. I’m not saying any of these are GOOD arguments, just that they are established federal rules and have gone unquestioned for decades. Legal decisions have hung on less in the past.
The whole anti-abortion movement is endlessly frustrating. If they were truly against abortion they’d be pro-contraception. Instead, they’re anti-science, anti-women, and as pointed out upthread really and truly lose all interest in protecting children after they’re born. Carrying a child to term is not to protect the child, it’s to punish the woman for being immodest and immoral. If that wasn’t clear before, the push for elimination of exceptions for rape and incest ought to be enough proof that this was never about the babies.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
That's why most of the anti-abortion playbook doesn't make logical sense. It depends on constantly being the dog chasing the car -- if they catch the car, the game is over.
I think this is what frustrates me most about abortion as a conversational topic, as though if you could just find the correct logical argument, the correct analogy, the aha moment, you could get through to an anti-abortionist. But of course you can't, because it's not about logic, it's about securing votes. But now, with Texas, the dog has caught the car. Every conservative state legislature now knows the exact magical formula to get an abortion ban past the Supreme Court. We can expect to see a flurry of carbon-copy bills. What happens--aside from the very real human misery--when the issue they've dined out on for fifty years is snatched away by their own victory? Where will the culture war move next?
posted by mittens at 6:10 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
I think this is what frustrates me most about abortion as a conversational topic, as though if you could just find the correct logical argument, the correct analogy, the aha moment, you could get through to an anti-abortionist. But of course you can't, because it's not about logic, it's about securing votes. But now, with Texas, the dog has caught the car. Every conservative state legislature now knows the exact magical formula to get an abortion ban past the Supreme Court. We can expect to see a flurry of carbon-copy bills. What happens--aside from the very real human misery--when the issue they've dined out on for fifty years is snatched away by their own victory? Where will the culture war move next?
posted by mittens at 6:10 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
Where will the culture war move next?Unfortunately, the resistance to trans rights has pulled extensively from the anti-choice playbook.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:17 AM on September 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
Conservative anti-abortion sentiment isn't about abortion at all. It's about attracting voters.
Always worth posting in these discussions: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose."
From the intro: "So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women — abortion.
In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe."
posted by msbrauer at 6:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
Always worth posting in these discussions: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose."
From the intro: "So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women — abortion.
In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe."
posted by msbrauer at 6:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
What happens--aside from the very real human misery--when the issue they've dined out on for fifty years is snatched away by their own victory? Where will the culture war move next?
This is one of several reasons I expect the Supreme Court case over Mississippi's six-week abortion ban to end with Roe being nominally upheld, in order to convince less media-savvy voters in both parties that the car has not been caught.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:26 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
This is one of several reasons I expect the Supreme Court case over Mississippi's six-week abortion ban to end with Roe being nominally upheld, in order to convince less media-savvy voters in both parties that the car has not been caught.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:26 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Key facts about the abortion debate in America summarizes public opinion research.
A few interesting findings: The loudest voices are generally the more extreme, but less than 40 percent of people think abortion should be banned or always allowed. Education level and religious affiliation are strong predictors of opinion, but the gender gap is relatively small. The overall prochoice/prolife split has not varied much in recent decades, but it's grown increasingly partisan.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:37 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
A few interesting findings: The loudest voices are generally the more extreme, but less than 40 percent of people think abortion should be banned or always allowed. Education level and religious affiliation are strong predictors of opinion, but the gender gap is relatively small. The overall prochoice/prolife split has not varied much in recent decades, but it's grown increasingly partisan.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:37 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
But now, with Texas, the dog has caught the car. Every conservative state legislature now knows the exact magical formula to get an abortion ban past the Supreme Court.
Yes and no. All the Supreme Court has done thus far is declined to enjoin the law from taking effect. It absolutely turns legal standing on its ear, so SCOTUS won't be able to ignore a challenge to it once it goes into effect.
The acknowledged playbook, in Texas and elsewhere, is to enact state laws that are so outlandish and plainly unconstitutional that the Supreme Court cannot ignore it, and that sets the stage to demand overturning Roe.
But, as the Holy Zarquon says:
This is one of several reasons I expect the Supreme Court case over Mississippi's six-week abortion ban to end with Roe being nominally upheld, in order to convince less media-savvy voters in both parties that the car has not been caught.
I completely agree. The Supreme Court is going to axe each of these stupid state laws one by one, allowing conservatives to make the argument that what is needed is more conservative Supreme Court Justices -- more Brett Kavanaughs and Amy Coney Barretts -- and the only way to get that is to elect more Republican presidents.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:46 AM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yes and no. All the Supreme Court has done thus far is declined to enjoin the law from taking effect. It absolutely turns legal standing on its ear, so SCOTUS won't be able to ignore a challenge to it once it goes into effect.
The acknowledged playbook, in Texas and elsewhere, is to enact state laws that are so outlandish and plainly unconstitutional that the Supreme Court cannot ignore it, and that sets the stage to demand overturning Roe.
But, as the Holy Zarquon says:
This is one of several reasons I expect the Supreme Court case over Mississippi's six-week abortion ban to end with Roe being nominally upheld, in order to convince less media-savvy voters in both parties that the car has not been caught.
I completely agree. The Supreme Court is going to axe each of these stupid state laws one by one, allowing conservatives to make the argument that what is needed is more conservative Supreme Court Justices -- more Brett Kavanaughs and Amy Coney Barretts -- and the only way to get that is to elect more Republican presidents.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:46 AM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Ben, I'm sorry but that attitude is entirely mistaken. Maybe some Republicans took that view at some point, but failing to take their goals of wiping out all the gains of the last hundred+ years is what got us to this place. It's time to stop being patronizing to people being targeted. They absolutely do mean it, and women a and other targeted groups will (already are) suffer and die as a result. They will go as far as we let them, and they are. Open your eyes and stop cuddling your comforting fictions.
posted by emjaybee at 6:51 AM on September 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 6:51 AM on September 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
The National Council of Jewish Women are working on an amicus brief.
Jewish law not only permits the termination of pregnancies but also requires it when the life of the pregnant person is at risk.Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg put together this backgrounder tweet thread on the issue.
Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, “Abortion: A Halakhic Perspective,” Tradition 25:4 (1991)posted by mikelieman at 6:56 AM on September 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
Here it is clear that saving a life is not the only sanction for permitting an abortion... It would seem to me that issues such as dignity, domestic peace & pain,
Yeah, I did not mean to imply that this law will be overturned. Roe will stand, on paper, in a swiss-cheese form that allows red states to pass pre-viability bans, medication abortion bans, headhunting laws, etc., at will as long as they include the correct legalese. All they need is the strawman of "Roe is still alive" to galvanize the religious right/mollify Dems.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:01 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:01 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Where will the culture war move next?
I assume the next targets will be those that loud minorities of liberal quislings like the Harper's Letter signatories or "civility" fetishists have spent the last several years attacking, because they've already got a not-insubstantial audience among Democrats. The current boogeymen for that crowd are trans rights (or as Singal/Weiss/Mounk put it, the fearsome "rapid onset gender dysphoria"), anti-racism education, and sex workers; I expect we'll see quick crackdowns on those as well, maybe even before the GOP has recaptured Congress and/or the White House.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:15 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I assume the next targets will be those that loud minorities of liberal quislings like the Harper's Letter signatories or "civility" fetishists have spent the last several years attacking, because they've already got a not-insubstantial audience among Democrats. The current boogeymen for that crowd are trans rights (or as Singal/Weiss/Mounk put it, the fearsome "rapid onset gender dysphoria"), anti-racism education, and sex workers; I expect we'll see quick crackdowns on those as well, maybe even before the GOP has recaptured Congress and/or the White House.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:15 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
The approach this law takes is also unique and I believe there is concern it could be expanded to other fronts. Per the generally reputable Texas Tribune, In allowing private citizens to report abortions and that "Family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals could be open to lawsuits, under the broad language in the bill, according to legal experts and physicians who opposed the measure. People who sued would be awarded at least $10,000, as well as costs for attorney’s fees, if they won.
“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”
posted by beaning at 7:30 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”
posted by beaning at 7:30 AM on September 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Mr.Know-it-some: “Key facts about the abortion debate in America summarizes public opinion research.”
“The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal,” Fred Clark, Slacktivist, 18 February 2012 [Previously]
In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.posted by ob1quixote at 7:44 AM on September 1, 2021 [34 favorites]
Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.
“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”
If SCOTUS says it's cool to turn citizens into private attorney generals then we start citizen referenda in every blue state we can and start coming for the guns.
Sugar, we're goin' down swinging.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:47 AM on September 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
If SCOTUS says it's cool to turn citizens into private attorney generals then we start citizen referenda in every blue state we can and start coming for the guns.
Sugar, we're goin' down swinging.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:47 AM on September 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
Isn't there a difference between evangelical and Catholic abortion opposition? Haven't conservative Catholic authorities always believed life begins at conception, and therefore opposed abortion?
posted by PhineasGage at 7:49 AM on September 1, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 7:49 AM on September 1, 2021
As is fairly well known, Roe itself isn't even the standing precedent any more: PP v. Casey is, which opened the door to the thousand-cuts approach to dismantling abortion rights by state. Going for a sweeping SCOTUS declaration that ROE WAS WRONG AND ABORTION IS NOW ILLEGAL is a crusader's game, great for grandstanding on a state legislature level but not very effective in practice. The federal Congress
The savvier approach is to poke at the "undue burden" definition that PPvC established, which has made abortion legal in many states IF you can find a practitioner who can clear every legal hurdle required to perform one, which has done what they wanted it to do -- taken access to abortion out of the hands of those who cannot afford to spend quite a bit of time and effort and money pursuing one. Once "is this an undue burden?" turned the question of "is it legal to do this" from a straightforward time standard into a subjective judgment, something like Texas's atrocious law was inevitable.
There will be those who will point to Roe's fractured existence and froth at the mouth that someone, somewhere, is having a legal abortion and that simply will not stand. But in this case, the more reflective will note that the heavy work has already been done and mimic it. So if you know a person with childbearing capabilities -- and who among us does not? -- be prepared to support them and to fight for them in ways that should simply no longer be necessary.
posted by delfin at 7:56 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
The savvier approach is to poke at the "undue burden" definition that PPvC established, which has made abortion legal in many states IF you can find a practitioner who can clear every legal hurdle required to perform one, which has done what they wanted it to do -- taken access to abortion out of the hands of those who cannot afford to spend quite a bit of time and effort and money pursuing one. Once "is this an undue burden?" turned the question of "is it legal to do this" from a straightforward time standard into a subjective judgment, something like Texas's atrocious law was inevitable.
There will be those who will point to Roe's fractured existence and froth at the mouth that someone, somewhere, is having a legal abortion and that simply will not stand. But in this case, the more reflective will note that the heavy work has already been done and mimic it. So if you know a person with childbearing capabilities -- and who among us does not? -- be prepared to support them and to fight for them in ways that should simply no longer be necessary.
posted by delfin at 7:56 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
From the intro: "So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women — abortion.
As an aside, I don't think that's a particularly sound talking point. I try to buy mostly organic foods. I don't like herbicides. I don't like pesticides. I don't like pharmaceutical companies. But every month, I feed my dog a prescription flea poison. I still think we should ban pesticides.
posted by aniola at 8:19 AM on September 1, 2021
As an aside, I don't think that's a particularly sound talking point. I try to buy mostly organic foods. I don't like herbicides. I don't like pesticides. I don't like pharmaceutical companies. But every month, I feed my dog a prescription flea poison. I still think we should ban pesticides.
posted by aniola at 8:19 AM on September 1, 2021
Ben, I'm sorry but that attitude is entirely mistaken. Maybe some Republicans took that view at some point, but failing to take their goals of wiping out all the gains of the last hundred+ years is what got us to this place. It's time to stop being patronizing to people being targeted. They absolutely do mean it, and women a and other targeted groups will (already are) suffer and die as a result. They will go as far as we let them, and they are. Open your eyes and stop cuddling your comforting fictions.
You think this is comforting? I'm not suggesting that Republicans are secret feminists who only oppose abortion as a means to get votes. I'm saying that the subjugation of women is the delicious icing on the cake for them.
My point is that Republican politicians don't actually care about anything but getting votes (Republican rank and file may be different, although I think they're just gullible). If they were truly anti-abortion in an ideological sense, you wouldn't hear about Republican politicians paying for their mistresses' abortions. No, this is actually much worse -- targeting the disadvantaged and cultivating a voter base through crass opportunism rather than a sincere belief in anything at all.
If I was unclear, I did not mean for "they don't really mean it" to suggest that we can all relax. Quite the opposite.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
You think this is comforting? I'm not suggesting that Republicans are secret feminists who only oppose abortion as a means to get votes. I'm saying that the subjugation of women is the delicious icing on the cake for them.
My point is that Republican politicians don't actually care about anything but getting votes (Republican rank and file may be different, although I think they're just gullible). If they were truly anti-abortion in an ideological sense, you wouldn't hear about Republican politicians paying for their mistresses' abortions. No, this is actually much worse -- targeting the disadvantaged and cultivating a voter base through crass opportunism rather than a sincere belief in anything at all.
If I was unclear, I did not mean for "they don't really mean it" to suggest that we can all relax. Quite the opposite.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:19 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
If you want to read about the evangelical's pivot from ségrégation to abortion, some of the story is covered here.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:20 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:20 AM on September 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Conservative Catholic authorities always believed life begins at conception
i believe the clergy does (or is supposed to), and it's part of their "Doctrine of Seamless Cloth", which is why they're at least consistent and oppose capital punishment, euthanasia, and in most cases, war as well.
Evangelicals do not have that same consistency, nor do most Conservatives--including Catholic laity.
In any case, Midwest Access Coalition and The Brigid Alliance could probably use help, given that they're following in the footsteps of the Jane Collective (previously), The Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (a group of Protestant and Jewish clergy who helped people seeking abortion between 1967-1973), and Pat Maginnis's Society for Humane Abortions.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:26 AM on September 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
i believe the clergy does (or is supposed to), and it's part of their "Doctrine of Seamless Cloth", which is why they're at least consistent and oppose capital punishment, euthanasia, and in most cases, war as well.
Evangelicals do not have that same consistency, nor do most Conservatives--including Catholic laity.
In any case, Midwest Access Coalition and The Brigid Alliance could probably use help, given that they're following in the footsteps of the Jane Collective (previously), The Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (a group of Protestant and Jewish clergy who helped people seeking abortion between 1967-1973), and Pat Maginnis's Society for Humane Abortions.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:26 AM on September 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
As an aside, I don't think that's a particularly sound talking point. I try to buy mostly organic foods. I don't like herbicides. I don't like pesticides. I don't like pharmaceutical companies. But every month, I feed my dog a prescription flea poison. I still think we should ban pesticides.
I'm....not entirely sure why you think this is a counter-argument against the talking point that "anti-choice women will often secretly opt for abortion themselves when they need it".
In fact, it actually supports the pro-choice side - you make the choice to avoid pesticides for your own self, but for your dog, you know that they can't make that choice for themselves, and your doctor has told you that this is necessary for your dog's health, so you give your dog a flea prescription. Now, if you were trying to ban that specific flea medication, but secretly giving it to your dog, that'd be a closer comparison.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:40 AM on September 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
I'm....not entirely sure why you think this is a counter-argument against the talking point that "anti-choice women will often secretly opt for abortion themselves when they need it".
In fact, it actually supports the pro-choice side - you make the choice to avoid pesticides for your own self, but for your dog, you know that they can't make that choice for themselves, and your doctor has told you that this is necessary for your dog's health, so you give your dog a flea prescription. Now, if you were trying to ban that specific flea medication, but secretly giving it to your dog, that'd be a closer comparison.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:40 AM on September 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
There are a few things I've never understood about opposition to abortion. First, as of today, or at least as I read, the abortion rate is significantly lower than the immediate post Roe v. Wade period. Seems to me like easy access to diverse contraception is doing its job.
One of the (many) terrible things about the abortion "debate" is how pragmatism should've ended the debate nearly instantly but instead, the reverse has happened: pragmatism has been completely weeded out of (at least) half our political class. When support for an obviously unworkable, impractical policy goal became a prerequisite for running for office as a Republican, it was inevitable we'd eventually end up with one political party filled with people who don't care if any of their policies actually work.
Always worth posting in these discussions: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose."
That piece really lays bare how much anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in fundamental attribution error (y'know, in addition to the Puritanical anti-sex attitudes). "If I need an abortion it's because of my particular circumstances, but those girls are here because they're all sluts." I wish we knew how to fix that kind of failure of empathy.
posted by mstokes650 at 9:12 AM on September 1, 2021 [29 favorites]
One of the (many) terrible things about the abortion "debate" is how pragmatism should've ended the debate nearly instantly but instead, the reverse has happened: pragmatism has been completely weeded out of (at least) half our political class. When support for an obviously unworkable, impractical policy goal became a prerequisite for running for office as a Republican, it was inevitable we'd eventually end up with one political party filled with people who don't care if any of their policies actually work.
Always worth posting in these discussions: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion - When the Anti-Choice Choose."
That piece really lays bare how much anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in fundamental attribution error (y'know, in addition to the Puritanical anti-sex attitudes). "If I need an abortion it's because of my particular circumstances, but those girls are here because they're all sluts." I wish we knew how to fix that kind of failure of empathy.
posted by mstokes650 at 9:12 AM on September 1, 2021 [29 favorites]
Evangelicals do not have that same consistency, nor do most Conservatives--including Catholic laity.
Yup. I went to a liberated Catholic girls' high school in the 1980s. They never once said "abortion is wrong," they always said "the church teaches that abortion is wrong."
posted by Melismata at 9:13 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yup. I went to a liberated Catholic girls' high school in the 1980s. They never once said "abortion is wrong," they always said "the church teaches that abortion is wrong."
posted by Melismata at 9:13 AM on September 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
What was the procedure that the wealthy used as a way to obtain abortions before Roe v Wade? I believe the euphemism was having a cyst removed or something but there was a widely used catch-all term that was an actual medical procedure. I don't think it was even an abortion for medical purposes procedure, it was something else whose side effect inevitably ended up being a medical abortion?
posted by geoff. at 9:42 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by geoff. at 9:42 AM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
What is a notch worse than other bans is there's not rape or incest exception. So someone is going to now someone who's been raped, turn them in and get $10k. It just feels....more wrong than any other attempt they've tried.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on September 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on September 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
What was the procedure that the wealthy used as a way to obtain abortions before Roe v Wade?
"Induction of delayed menses" is a term I've heard mentioned. Past review articles at the Guttmacher Institute and Scientific American mostly talk about travel to areas where abortion was legal, and that this was actually advertised. Personal note: a relative of mine had abortion services repeatedly offered by hotel staff during a visit to Mexico in the 1960s.
The Jane Collective worked on underground options, particularly in the Chicago area.
There's a general belief that Blackmun's experience in medical law gave him an awareness of "botched" abortions that led to his majority opinion in Roe v Wade.
Haven't conservative Catholic authorities always believed life begins at conception, and therefore opposed abortion?
I thought quickening was the historic agreement of pregnancy/personhood though, not the first missed period, given the many reasons for missed periods.
posted by beaning at 10:16 AM on September 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
"Induction of delayed menses" is a term I've heard mentioned. Past review articles at the Guttmacher Institute and Scientific American mostly talk about travel to areas where abortion was legal, and that this was actually advertised. Personal note: a relative of mine had abortion services repeatedly offered by hotel staff during a visit to Mexico in the 1960s.
The Jane Collective worked on underground options, particularly in the Chicago area.
There's a general belief that Blackmun's experience in medical law gave him an awareness of "botched" abortions that led to his majority opinion in Roe v Wade.
Haven't conservative Catholic authorities always believed life begins at conception, and therefore opposed abortion?
I thought quickening was the historic agreement of pregnancy/personhood though, not the first missed period, given the many reasons for missed periods.
posted by beaning at 10:16 AM on September 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to go after contraception next.
They will absolutely go after contraception next. They are already going after pornography and trans people. They will go after same sex marriage and interracial marriage. They will go after the financial independence of women. They want to erase the last hundred years.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:04 PM on September 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
They will absolutely go after contraception next. They are already going after pornography and trans people. They will go after same sex marriage and interracial marriage. They will go after the financial independence of women. They want to erase the last hundred years.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:04 PM on September 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
I have resided and worked in Texas for a long time, and have always been deeply embarrassed by state and local politics -- but it's only in recent years that I've become almost afraid to live here. I'm grateful that I'm very near menopause and have recently had my IUD replaced, but I fear for the health and well-being of all the women younger than me.
posted by Annabelle74 at 2:23 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by Annabelle74 at 2:23 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I wish we knew how to fix that kind of failure of empathy. You can’t. It’s a part of most modern Republicans brains that is actually missing. There is a in group and a out group. They are incapable of empathy for the out group.
posted by jasondigitized at 2:39 PM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by jasondigitized at 2:39 PM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Years ago, on another internet, I went looking for the first mentions of abortion in catholic records. Trying to get to the source of the discussion...
Forgive me for not remembering details but the general narrative maintains without precise dates. I have not been able to find this text or really any mention of it despite several attempts over the years... Perhaps someone here can help
In one way or another, I found a council of some kind that gathered in early 1400's or late 1300's
While the motives of misogyny, patriarchy, control, exploitation of reproduction were certainly present, they were not explicitly mentioned as the reason for banning abortion.
What they did mention was that if pregnancies could be aborted, someone might accidentally abort the messiah...
Their whole religion is built around another messiah being born in human form so I guess in a sort of primitive, paranoid way that almost makes sense.
I sincerely wonder how many people who oppose Roe v Wade have considered that aspect of the debate...
I am not really sure how that can inform the current discussion beyond an interesting anecdote. It might even invigorate true believers to the potential severity of abortion in an evangelical context... Perhaps it can help people remember that banning abortion under that pretext is a pretty severe violation of church and state... I imagine those trying to ban abortion are more than aware of that... Indeed, religious authoritarianism seems to be the point...
sigh...
posted by albion moonlight at 2:56 PM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Forgive me for not remembering details but the general narrative maintains without precise dates. I have not been able to find this text or really any mention of it despite several attempts over the years... Perhaps someone here can help
In one way or another, I found a council of some kind that gathered in early 1400's or late 1300's
While the motives of misogyny, patriarchy, control, exploitation of reproduction were certainly present, they were not explicitly mentioned as the reason for banning abortion.
What they did mention was that if pregnancies could be aborted, someone might accidentally abort the messiah...
Their whole religion is built around another messiah being born in human form so I guess in a sort of primitive, paranoid way that almost makes sense.
I sincerely wonder how many people who oppose Roe v Wade have considered that aspect of the debate...
I am not really sure how that can inform the current discussion beyond an interesting anecdote. It might even invigorate true believers to the potential severity of abortion in an evangelical context... Perhaps it can help people remember that banning abortion under that pretext is a pretty severe violation of church and state... I imagine those trying to ban abortion are more than aware of that... Indeed, religious authoritarianism seems to be the point...
sigh...
posted by albion moonlight at 2:56 PM on September 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
As I said in another thread, this is why I got my tubes out. I've ensured none of these blatant misogynists can force birth on me. I was supremely fortunate to be able to get it done and to want it done. I say I am fortunate to want it done because many people-who-can-get-pregnant don't want to be sterilized, they simply want to be able to choose when they get pregnant. And it is much, much harder to have that desire and be facing the path the USA is headed down because unless you are completely sterile then your fundamental control over your own body becomes entirely dependent on where you live. That's assuming it does not get banned on a federal level--which will absolutely be the goal of the next Republican administration once Roe is struck down.
posted by Anonymous at 3:59 PM on September 1, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 3:59 PM on September 1, 2021
Can someone illustrate please a better future and the path from here to making it possible?
posted by aniola at 5:55 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 5:55 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
One way is for entrepreneurs to make it easy for women in Texas to affordably and anonymously acquire abortion pills in the mail. I am sure there are already two angry women in a garage registering a shell company in Bermuda lining up a contract manufacturer to run a direct to your door operation. The major carriers ship tons of weed to people across the United States every year. This will be a thing.
posted by jasondigitized at 6:05 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jasondigitized at 6:05 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Can someone illustrate please a better future and the path from here to making it possible?
One way is for entrepreneurs to make it easy for women in Texas to affordably and anonymously acquire abortion pills in the mail.
I mean, we don't need entrepreneurs to do this, medical abortion has already been quietly expanding throughout the US for the last few years thanks to feminist abortion activists.
The other really important thing is for more progressive states to pass abortion protection laws since overturning Roe would basically kick off a bunch of trigger laws specifically designed to overturn abortion at the state level. Illinois will probably be the destination for abortions in the Midwest in a few years thanks to some recent legislation they passed.
In the meantime, donate to your state's abortion fund. Abortion fund folks are the real deal and do not fuck around. They have been preparing for a post-Roe future for years.
tl;dr: support your local abortion activists. We've seen this coming for years.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:15 PM on September 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
One way is for entrepreneurs to make it easy for women in Texas to affordably and anonymously acquire abortion pills in the mail.
I mean, we don't need entrepreneurs to do this, medical abortion has already been quietly expanding throughout the US for the last few years thanks to feminist abortion activists.
The other really important thing is for more progressive states to pass abortion protection laws since overturning Roe would basically kick off a bunch of trigger laws specifically designed to overturn abortion at the state level. Illinois will probably be the destination for abortions in the Midwest in a few years thanks to some recent legislation they passed.
In the meantime, donate to your state's abortion fund. Abortion fund folks are the real deal and do not fuck around. They have been preparing for a post-Roe future for years.
tl;dr: support your local abortion activists. We've seen this coming for years.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:15 PM on September 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
If African Americans are disproportionately likely to have abortions, why would former segregationists want to ban the service?
Abortion is empowerment. Being against abortion means wanting to disempower the people who might want one. Impoverishing Black women, disrupting Black family life, impeding Black women's careers, lowering Black women's wages, enacting government control over Black women's bodies ... what racist isn't going to love all of this?
posted by MiraK at 6:43 PM on September 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
Abortion is empowerment. Being against abortion means wanting to disempower the people who might want one. Impoverishing Black women, disrupting Black family life, impeding Black women's careers, lowering Black women's wages, enacting government control over Black women's bodies ... what racist isn't going to love all of this?
posted by MiraK at 6:43 PM on September 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
>Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to go after contraception next.
They will absolutely go after contraception next. They are already going after pornography and trans people. They will go after same sex marriage and interracial marriage. They will go after the financial independence of women. They want to erase the last hundred years.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon
Anybody who thinks this is hyperbolic catastrophising has not been paying attention.
Same forces are in play here in Australia.
posted by Pouteria at 6:54 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
They will absolutely go after contraception next. They are already going after pornography and trans people. They will go after same sex marriage and interracial marriage. They will go after the financial independence of women. They want to erase the last hundred years.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon
Anybody who thinks this is hyperbolic catastrophising has not been paying attention.
Same forces are in play here in Australia.
posted by Pouteria at 6:54 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I would like to hyperbolic anticatastrophize. I would like to imagine a better world and the path to get us there. We can get there. All it takes is a goal and then a lot of hard work by people who care. Like us.
posted by aniola at 7:04 PM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by aniola at 7:04 PM on September 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
You know, something like 3% (and I've seen estimates that say up to 5%) of women are "immune" to mifepristone and misoprostol, the most commonly used abortion meds combo. I found out the hard way myself: took the pills from Planned Parenthood when I needed an abortion, and all I had was the requisite 8 hours of horrible cramping. The pregnancy recovered and began to grow again within a week. Took the pills again for luck, and yeah, 8 more hours of labor pains and no abortion. The meds are a boon to most people with restricted abortion access, but they don't work for us all. I hope we keep folks like me in mind and keep fighting for the right to surgical abortions too.
Also BTW medical abortions suuuuuuck. I can't understand why the meds were even suggested to me when the "surgical" abortion (which was just suction/vacuum aspiration) was a 15 minute procedure that was about as uncomfortable as a PAP smear. It's a travesty that *anyone* has to go through 8 fucking hours of cramping and a messy miscarriage at home on their own when, in a just world, we would all be able to walk into a clinic next to every Starbucks to request that miraculous, quick, almost-painless vacuum aspiration procedure, which, far from leaving 3-5% of women in the lurch, literally never fails (because the doctor doesn't let you get off the surgical bed unless they've confirmed that the pregnancy has been extracted! just wait 30 seconds with your legs still in the stirrups for confirmation! they go right back in if it turns out they missed it for some reason!) and also has a much lower rate of post-abortion infections since all the care is administered by doctors inside a clinic rather than teens having miscarriages alone in stinky motel rooms.
Back then(2007), a lot of abortion activists I came across viewed the pills as rather a barbaric way to treat women seeking abortions... and I quite agree. But of course the world we live in is so fucking bonkers that this barbaric method is the only way to get around the outlawing of our healthcare.
posted by MiraK at 7:23 PM on September 1, 2021 [28 favorites]
Also BTW medical abortions suuuuuuck. I can't understand why the meds were even suggested to me when the "surgical" abortion (which was just suction/vacuum aspiration) was a 15 minute procedure that was about as uncomfortable as a PAP smear. It's a travesty that *anyone* has to go through 8 fucking hours of cramping and a messy miscarriage at home on their own when, in a just world, we would all be able to walk into a clinic next to every Starbucks to request that miraculous, quick, almost-painless vacuum aspiration procedure, which, far from leaving 3-5% of women in the lurch, literally never fails (because the doctor doesn't let you get off the surgical bed unless they've confirmed that the pregnancy has been extracted! just wait 30 seconds with your legs still in the stirrups for confirmation! they go right back in if it turns out they missed it for some reason!) and also has a much lower rate of post-abortion infections since all the care is administered by doctors inside a clinic rather than teens having miscarriages alone in stinky motel rooms.
Back then(2007), a lot of abortion activists I came across viewed the pills as rather a barbaric way to treat women seeking abortions... and I quite agree. But of course the world we live in is so fucking bonkers that this barbaric method is the only way to get around the outlawing of our healthcare.
posted by MiraK at 7:23 PM on September 1, 2021 [28 favorites]
Haven't conservative Catholic authorities always believed life begins at conception, and therefore opposed abortion?
Catholicism today, and in the past, was far from a single entity. It would not have survived 2,000 years if it was as highly centralized as it makes it out to be. There's a definite trend now from some very vocal mainstream Catholics to make it seem that Catholicism always was and has been a single entity with an unchanging viewpoint. That's far from the truth and it is an agglomeration of a variety of local traditions, myths and religions.
Here is a pretty good article on the teaching of abortion within the Catholic faith but even this doesn't really touch on all of it. Keep in mind that a lot of stories in Catholicism are really weird and legalistic. It is like a lay person trying to understand a Supreme Court opinion. And much like the Supreme Court the views and interpretations of Catholicism has changed over time.
As the article I linked to notes there are saints that perform abortions! And they're miracles. So a very naive interpretation is that not only did a saint go ahead and perform an abortion, they not only got the implicit go ahead from God, he literally aided and abetted an abortion. But that's an incredibly simplistic view of this and this is where we get stories like "abortion is bad because the next Messiah would be born" or the "saints on the heads of a pen." I guess the non-Catholic equivalent is to think of quantum physics as some guy who tried to kill a cat by looking into a box.
If someone says "Catholicism is always this" or "Catholicism is always that" they're frankly wrong and I think it is really unbecoming for modern Catholics to alienate and sideline people like Jesuits who are the more liberal arms as not Catholics. I had a nun in college who was pro-life, and adamant it hurt the poor communities the most.
posted by geoff. at 7:30 PM on September 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
Catholicism today, and in the past, was far from a single entity. It would not have survived 2,000 years if it was as highly centralized as it makes it out to be. There's a definite trend now from some very vocal mainstream Catholics to make it seem that Catholicism always was and has been a single entity with an unchanging viewpoint. That's far from the truth and it is an agglomeration of a variety of local traditions, myths and religions.
Here is a pretty good article on the teaching of abortion within the Catholic faith but even this doesn't really touch on all of it. Keep in mind that a lot of stories in Catholicism are really weird and legalistic. It is like a lay person trying to understand a Supreme Court opinion. And much like the Supreme Court the views and interpretations of Catholicism has changed over time.
As the article I linked to notes there are saints that perform abortions! And they're miracles. So a very naive interpretation is that not only did a saint go ahead and perform an abortion, they not only got the implicit go ahead from God, he literally aided and abetted an abortion. But that's an incredibly simplistic view of this and this is where we get stories like "abortion is bad because the next Messiah would be born" or the "saints on the heads of a pen." I guess the non-Catholic equivalent is to think of quantum physics as some guy who tried to kill a cat by looking into a box.
If someone says "Catholicism is always this" or "Catholicism is always that" they're frankly wrong and I think it is really unbecoming for modern Catholics to alienate and sideline people like Jesuits who are the more liberal arms as not Catholics. I had a nun in college who was pro-life, and adamant it hurt the poor communities the most.
posted by geoff. at 7:30 PM on September 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
Do They Really Believe Abortion Is Murder?
...the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to punish women who have sex.posted by kirkaracha at 7:48 PM on September 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
To be fair, this is never phrased as “punishing” women by pro-lifers; what I’ve heard again and again from pro-lifers is that women should be made to “take responsibility for their actions” (by “actions,” they mean having sex), or that abortion is wrong because it lets women “avoid the consequences.”
So what motivates pro-lifers: the belief that women should be forced to face consequences for having sex, or the belief that abortion is exactly like child murder? Let's review.
My Body, My Choice? The Paradox of Republican Anti-vaxxers
The first time I saw a photo of an anti-vaxxer with a sign that read “My Body My Choice,” I was sort of puzzled. I thought perhaps the photo editor had used the wrong image to accompany the story—but then I saw that the sign also included a picture of a mask with a red line across it. No, these people weren’t protesting a government that was regulating uteruses, a government that was telling women when they could end a pregnancy that was going on in their own bodies. They were instead protesting a simple and painless public-health measure. They were mad at the idea of having to wear a piece of fabric on their faces. For this particular group, government regulation was fine unless it was regulating them—at which point it became a horrible infringement on their constitutional rights.posted by kirkaracha at 8:15 PM on September 1, 2021 [16 favorites]
...
And if that weren’t enough, Texas is about to enact a law that would allow private citizens to sue people who helped women get abortions—like in The Handmaid’s Tale or the Salem witch trials. Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, explained the law to The New York Times: “If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there.” Yes, the people who consider masks a check on their freedom want your barista to be able to sue you if they suspect you’ve had an abortion.
The SCOTUS decision is out and the majority is complete fucking garbage.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:34 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:34 PM on September 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
legally speaking, the problem with protecting abortion is that you need to bar state governments from making something illegal. this is a difficult thing to enforce on them from outside (federally). to do so, the supreme court in roe enshrined abortion as a federal constitutional right, but with all the exceptions and caveats that most constitutional rights have, which are now being chipped away into oblivion. the easiest way to fix this is to just control the state legislature and amend the state law from the inside, or amend the state constitution. then, federal law and the federal constitution dont matter.
failing that, short term, the way forward is for women in need to obtain the medication they need in the mail, including if it breaks state law.
long term, the way forward is to elect dems president and have them appoint supreme court justices.
posted by wibari at 10:28 PM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
failing that, short term, the way forward is for women in need to obtain the medication they need in the mail, including if it breaks state law.
long term, the way forward is to elect dems president and have them appoint supreme court justices.
posted by wibari at 10:28 PM on September 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
long term, the way forward is to elect dems president ...
This assumes that such elections (that is to say, any election which selects the "wrong" person) will be allowed to matter.
They won't. Especially not in Texas. They've learned their lesson, and they won't be making the same mistakes again. Did you elect the wrong person? Well, let's just adjudicate the matter with a series of subliterate GOP "auditors" who can be relied upon to find mysterious crimes, suspicious behaviors, and who magically ruin the security of the vote. Oops! I guess we sabotaged the election, well, better just appoint the appropriate Republican and we'll figure out what went wrong in time for the next election. The next one, promise. Really, we mean it this time.
The solution, if it could be said to be a solution (not really) will have to arrive from outside the US; people who have no particular legal vulnerability acting in accordance with their morals and who can mail minimally-acceptable "solutions" from overseas.
posted by aramaic at 11:19 PM on September 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
This assumes that such elections (that is to say, any election which selects the "wrong" person) will be allowed to matter.
They won't. Especially not in Texas. They've learned their lesson, and they won't be making the same mistakes again. Did you elect the wrong person? Well, let's just adjudicate the matter with a series of subliterate GOP "auditors" who can be relied upon to find mysterious crimes, suspicious behaviors, and who magically ruin the security of the vote. Oops! I guess we sabotaged the election, well, better just appoint the appropriate Republican and we'll figure out what went wrong in time for the next election. The next one, promise. Really, we mean it this time.
The solution, if it could be said to be a solution (not really) will have to arrive from outside the US; people who have no particular legal vulnerability acting in accordance with their morals and who can mail minimally-acceptable "solutions" from overseas.
posted by aramaic at 11:19 PM on September 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
you need to bar state governments from making something illegal
They've been doing this at least since McCulloch v. Maryland. If the supreme court wasn't intended to regulate legality in the states then they lost the plot a long time ago.
The whole "state choice" idea has never been respected. Dred Scott or Roe they DGAF. Abortion will never be a state matter for long: it will be decided and enforced.
posted by netowl at 11:29 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
They've been doing this at least since McCulloch v. Maryland. If the supreme court wasn't intended to regulate legality in the states then they lost the plot a long time ago.
The whole "state choice" idea has never been respected. Dred Scott or Roe they DGAF. Abortion will never be a state matter for long: it will be decided and enforced.
posted by netowl at 11:29 PM on September 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
They've been doing this at least since McCulloch v. Maryland.
No, yes, you're right. in the hypothetical scenario that congress made abortion presumptively lawful and a state wanted to make it unlawful, that whole line of authority would become relevant. but that is never going to happen in congress. which is why roe is based on a federal constitutional principle. which is why we are where we are at now.
posted by wibari at 12:03 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
No, yes, you're right. in the hypothetical scenario that congress made abortion presumptively lawful and a state wanted to make it unlawful, that whole line of authority would become relevant. but that is never going to happen in congress. which is why roe is based on a federal constitutional principle. which is why we are where we are at now.
posted by wibari at 12:03 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The SCOTUS decision is out and the majority is complete fucking garbage.
Heather Cox Richardson [FB, public] points out a serious problem with the Court.
Heather Cox Richardson [FB, public] points out a serious problem with the Court.
The Supreme Court has essentially blessed the efforts of Texas legislators to prevent the enforcement of federal law by using citizen vigilantes to get their way. The court decided the case on its increasingly active “shadow docket,” a series of cases decided without full briefings or oral argument, often in the dead of night, without signed opinions. In the past, such emergency decisions were rare and used to issue uncontroversial decisions or address irreparable immediate harm (like the death penalty). Since the beginning of the Trump administration, they have come to make up the majority of the court’s business.posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:52 AM on September 2, 2021 [15 favorites]
Since 2017, the court has used the shadow docket to advance right-wing goals. It has handed down brief, unsigned decisions after a party asks for emergency relief from a lower court order, siding first with Trump, and now with state Republicans, at a high rate. As University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck noted: “In less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone).” In comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications—averaging one every other Term.”
Catholics have not always been hardline against abortion.
https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid
posted by domo at 5:53 AM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid
posted by domo at 5:53 AM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
A different set of judges in the Supreme Court could've changed things and we would all do well to remember that.
posted by Anonymous at 6:53 AM on September 2, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 6:53 AM on September 2, 2021
Oh we know.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:57 AM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:57 AM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
All those millions of women in pink hats? They were right. They knew what was coming. I have said for a long time that even when they suck, people need to show up and vote and vote Democrat. And I keep hearing “they aren’t passing the laws we need” or “both sides are the same” or “centrist Dems aren’t progressive enough.” Well, this is exactly fucking why I was saying that. I’ve seen what’s coming for a long time. Back in 2010 the “tea party” was transparent bullshit to get republicans elected, and you could see the turn towards fascism beginning there. But people couldn’t be bothered to show up to vote, and gerrymandering swept the nation. In 2014, people couldn’t be bothered to vote, and McConnell cemented a senate majority which resulted in Merrick Garland not even getting a chance to get a senate vote. In 2016 the Bernie or bust and the “but her emails” people fucked around and we all found out. I don’t know what the hell it’s going to take for people to wake up, but there’s not much time left at all (and with voting restrictions, it may already be too late.) The Republicans have been telegraphing their intentions for years. The red states will come after contraception next. If they get both houses and the presidency, they will make abortion illegal nationwide.
posted by azpenguin at 7:29 AM on September 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 7:29 AM on September 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Incidentally, Texas also passed a law that said that it's perfectly fine to do open-carry with a pistol even when you don't have a permit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:40 AM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:40 AM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
We're going to get more of this Lochnerian bullshit from the Roberts court. This is what 2016's desultory accelerationist wanking ultimately got us. Thanks, Bernie Bros.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:04 AM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:04 AM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Should we discuss the impact of the personal decision-making of Justices Ginsberg and Breyer?
posted by PhineasGage at 8:11 AM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 8:11 AM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
Sure, so long as it's against the background of the Garland Affair and the GOP's campaign of judicial obstruction.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:14 AM on September 2, 2021
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:14 AM on September 2, 2021
Should we discuss the impact of the personal decision-making of Justices Ginsberg and Breyer?
I'd rather discuss how fucked up our system is that the civil rights of hundreds of millions of people can turn on the health of a handful of octogenarians, rather than blame Justice Ginsberg for believing she could hold out a few years longer.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:32 AM on September 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
I'd rather discuss how fucked up our system is that the civil rights of hundreds of millions of people can turn on the health of a handful of octogenarians, rather than blame Justice Ginsberg for believing she could hold out a few years longer.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:32 AM on September 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
Mod note: Hi friends. It sort of feels like a few folks are maybe casting around for familiar fights to have, and -- especially if you've been around these conversations here a lot and maybe you have certain people in mind that you're gearing up to have the same fights with --... just stop. There are probably better more interesting conversations to be had, or other new voices we might hear from, if we can skip that repetitious stuff. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:33 AM on September 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:33 AM on September 2, 2021 [14 favorites]
Justice Sotomayor calls it like she sees it:
"The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional 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. 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."
In contrast, the majority hides behind a "cowardly" legal argument: "their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:44 AM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
"The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional 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. 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."
In contrast, the majority hides behind a "cowardly" legal argument: "their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:44 AM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
No I'm going to go ahead and blame Ginsburg, Breyer, Feinstein, and anyone else who are knowingly endangering the people they swore to protect.
posted by bleep at 9:39 AM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by bleep at 9:39 AM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Here's a link to the anonymous tips site. It's the clearest and easiest to use government website I've ever seen.
If you want to help enforce the Texas Heartbeat Act anonymously, or have a tip on how you think the law has been violated, fill out the form below. We will not follow up with or contact you.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:44 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you want to help enforce the Texas Heartbeat Act anonymously, or have a tip on how you think the law has been violated, fill out the form below. We will not follow up with or contact you.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:44 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
That's not a government website--it's run by Texas Right to Life.
posted by box at 9:50 AM on September 2, 2021
posted by box at 9:50 AM on September 2, 2021
Apologies - I should have realized the Texas gov wouldn't be able to put together something that slick, even for one of their favorite hobbies.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:52 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:52 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
>>We will not follow up with or contact you.
>>That's not a government website--it's run by Texas Right to Life.
So... They plan to use the form to harvest actionable information they can make money off by filing suits on the ones that look usable.
posted by Wilbefort at 10:18 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
>>That's not a government website--it's run by Texas Right to Life.
So... They plan to use the form to harvest actionable information they can make money off by filing suits on the ones that look usable.
posted by Wilbefort at 10:18 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
No I'm going to go ahead and blame Ginsburg, Breyer, Feinstein, and anyone else who are knowingly endangering the people they swore to protect.
....Er, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer among the living.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on September 2, 2021
....Er, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer among the living.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on September 2, 2021
But if Douglas Ginsburg hadn't smoked weed in the '70s, eh, I can already tell this joke isn't going to be worth the effort.
posted by box at 11:05 AM on September 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by box at 11:05 AM on September 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Not that anyone here on MetaFilter would *cough* encourage insincere behavior, but there's apparently a fascinating tool someone created to try to overwhelm the Texas vigilante snitch site with fake submissions. (Alternate link.)
posted by PhineasGage at 11:25 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 11:25 AM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I’m pretty sure bleep was referring to the issue of Supreme Court justices failing to retire at opportune moments, thus creating situations where new administrations can nominate anti-choice justices. This happened with Ginsburg and looks like it could also happen with Breyer (who Dianne Feinstein, who many people also think needs to retire, has encouraged Breyer to stay on.)
posted by cakelite at 11:32 AM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by cakelite at 11:32 AM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Er, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer among the living.
You can't blame people who fucked up for what they did after they die? I can blame people for their fuck ups into eternity.
posted by bleep at 12:00 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
You can't blame people who fucked up for what they did after they die? I can blame people for their fuck ups into eternity.
posted by bleep at 12:00 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
RBG may have overestimated her health, but I'm pretty sure she did more for women's rights than anyone on Metafilter.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:20 PM on September 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:20 PM on September 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
On the topic of things that the government of Texas probably prefers its residents not know, the key drug necessary for empowering individuals to conduct a common type of self-managed abortion is available over-the-counter in Mexico (among other places). It is also available from online pharmacies. (It is commonly prescribed for peptic ulcers.) It has a 2-3 year shelf life without refrigeration.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:29 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:29 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
You can't blame people who fucked up for what they did after they die? I can blame people for their fuck ups into eternity.
You can't blame people for their fuckups if they didn't fuck up, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:34 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
You can't blame people for their fuckups if they didn't fuck up, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:34 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am highly offended at the suggestion that Ginsburg, one of the finest feminists of our time, "fucked up" by not retiring when a bunch of internet jockeys wanted her to. Which, by the way, was them wanting her to for easily the last 15 years of her being on the court.
I'm glad she didn't give a flying fuck what anyone thought. She protected our rights as long as she was able, and I thank her for it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:26 PM on September 2, 2021 [21 favorites]
I'm glad she didn't give a flying fuck what anyone thought. She protected our rights as long as she was able, and I thank her for it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:26 PM on September 2, 2021 [21 favorites]
- Dahlia Lithwick at Slate: “The Conservative Justices’ Reasoning in the Texas Abortion Case Is Legal Mansplaining”
- Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post: “The government can but also can’t but can tell you what to do with your body here in Texas”
If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there.
How would they have standing? How can you sue someone that didn't harm you in any way over something that's none of your business?
posted by kirkaracha at 3:03 PM on September 2, 2021
How would they have standing? How can you sue someone that didn't harm you in any way over something that's none of your business?
posted by kirkaracha at 3:03 PM on September 2, 2021
How would they have standing? How can you sue someone that didn't harm you in any way over something that's none of your business
The statute itself gives you standing as a private attorney general. That's the whole point: it's a bounty system. File suit, collect 10K and your fees.
... I would like to know just how the plaintiff is expected to gather information about the defendant, however. I suspect there's going to be a lot of underhanded skullduggery and thirdhand hearsay populating the filings. Unless, of course, you're the domestic partner of the defendant, I guess.
posted by suelac at 3:49 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The statute itself gives you standing as a private attorney general. That's the whole point: it's a bounty system. File suit, collect 10K and your fees.
... I would like to know just how the plaintiff is expected to gather information about the defendant, however. I suspect there's going to be a lot of underhanded skullduggery and thirdhand hearsay populating the filings. Unless, of course, you're the domestic partner of the defendant, I guess.
posted by suelac at 3:49 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Via discovery, of course. In an initial challenge to a complaint's legal sufficiency (a demurrer, or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, depending on the style) the alleged facts are usually presumed to be true. After that the Defendant is obliged to answer. And discovery may open before the answer is even due (not sure about TX).
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:35 PM on September 2, 2021
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:35 PM on September 2, 2021
For those interested in more detailed information regarding yesterday's ruling, Ilya Solmin (law professor at George Mason), explains the standing issue and argues that even though the decision was consistent with precedent, it was nonetheless dangerous and wrong. He also outlines some strategies pro-choice organizations may use to challenge SB 8.
posted by lumpy at 5:23 PM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by lumpy at 5:23 PM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Remember that this precedent is not just about abortion, either. What if Georgia enacts a law allowing private citizens to sue you because they think you might want to provide food and water to people at the polls? The vigilantes don't even need proof to file the lawsuit. Oh, maybe you win, maybe you even get your lawyer's fees back, but in the meantime you're spending money, time, and stress. It can be employed as an intimidation tactic. This is the state sanctioning vigilante justice and SCOTUS signing off on it.
posted by Anonymous at 5:34 PM on September 2, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 5:34 PM on September 2, 2021
What is to stop thousands of Texans from claiming they heard Governor Abbot (for example) paid for an alleged mistress' abortion this month and each suing him for $10k? If "I heard it from a Starbucks employee" is indeed enough to launch a lawsuit, it seems to me that any group that wants to harass somebody with a flood of nuisance lawsuits could do just that.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:27 PM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:27 PM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the Supreme Court did not rule that SB 8 was constitutional. Instead, they declined to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting SB 8 from being implemented due to somewhat arcane and debatable legal principles.
As soon as someone sues a abortion provider under SB 8, the provider will have standing to challenge SB 8's constitutionality. And that challenge will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court.
That doesn't mean that the ruling was morally or even legally correct, but it does mean that the fight over SB 8 is only beginning. The ruling also does not indicate that the Court will ultimately uphold SB 8.
posted by lumpy at 6:36 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
As soon as someone sues a abortion provider under SB 8, the provider will have standing to challenge SB 8's constitutionality. And that challenge will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court.
That doesn't mean that the ruling was morally or even legally correct, but it does mean that the fight over SB 8 is only beginning. The ruling also does not indicate that the Court will ultimately uphold SB 8.
posted by lumpy at 6:36 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Once Gov. Newsom survives the recall, it would be great to see him and the California legislature do this, as suggested by a UC Davis Law professor:
Lets send a message to SCOTUS.posted by PhineasGage at 6:38 PM on September 2, 2021 [11 favorites]
RT if you support CA or NY lawmakers passing a law to let private persons sue (in state court) any corporation for $10,000 each time it spends money to influence a political campaign.
We see your bet against Roe and raise you a Citizens United
Mod note: Hey, internet tough guys, we don't allow threats of violence against federal judges here. Commit your low-key felonies on your own website.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:08 PM on September 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:08 PM on September 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
What if Georgia enacts a law allowing private citizens to sue you because they think you might want to provide food and water to people at the polls? The vigilantes don't even need proof to file the lawsuit. Oh, maybe you win, maybe you even get your lawyer's fees back, but in the meantime you're spending money, time, and stress. It can be employed as an intimidation tactic.It's actually even worse than that: S.B. 8 changes the rules to make sure that it's as expensive as possible to defend against these cases — it allows them to bring the case anywhere and block transfers (i.e. you can force the defendant to travel across the state for the entire case), while the vigilante can get all of their costs the law explicitly blocks awards of costs & attorney's feeds to a successful defendant, and it allows repeated lawsuits over the same abortion by blocking the defense that another court found in your favor so the same case can be brought again in a different court.
It's specially designed to encourage harassment and it's going to be really nasty when you think about what abusers will be able to do with an easy way to threaten hefty damages against anyone who helps their victim with limited personal risk.
posted by adamsc at 7:10 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
any group that wants to harass somebody with a flood of nuisance lawsuits could do just that
Well, that's why the concept of nuisance suits (and nuisance settlement value) is a thing. But with something this politicized the risk of an abuse of process suit after dismissal, designation as a vexatious litigant or disciplinary action against the attorneys involved is a lot greater than it usually is.
I haven't looked to see if a verified complaint is required, but if so then perjury too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:39 PM on September 2, 2021
Well, that's why the concept of nuisance suits (and nuisance settlement value) is a thing. But with something this politicized the risk of an abuse of process suit after dismissal, designation as a vexatious litigant or disciplinary action against the attorneys involved is a lot greater than it usually is.
I haven't looked to see if a verified complaint is required, but if so then perjury too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:39 PM on September 2, 2021
That doesn't mean that the ruling was morally or even legally correct, but it does mean that the fight over SB 8 is only beginning. The ruling also does not indicate that the Court will ultimately uphold SB 8.
For what it's worth here's a random law student article that reviews the precedent on how state action is identified under qui tam (whistleblower) and private attorney general act frameworks (as of 2008).
Courts continue to struggle to properly apply state action theory, often rendering decisions "clearly inconsistent" with previously decided cases. Even some scholars cannot agree as to how many state action tests actually exist.' Nevertheless, the state action question remains a critical one, serving as a prelude to the actual constitutional claim against a private party. Today, courts ask two basic questions to find state action: (1) Did the private entity engage in a traditional and exclusive public function? and (2) Is there a sufficient enough nexus between the Government and private conduct?7 A court need only answer one of the two questions affirmatively to find state action.
The following discussion makes it clear that the avoidance of the issue now was a transparent dodge. Given that, they don't have to grant cert on a future case teed up by a suit under SB8 and if they do I fear the vote will go the same way.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:51 PM on September 2, 2021
For what it's worth here's a random law student article that reviews the precedent on how state action is identified under qui tam (whistleblower) and private attorney general act frameworks (as of 2008).
Courts continue to struggle to properly apply state action theory, often rendering decisions "clearly inconsistent" with previously decided cases. Even some scholars cannot agree as to how many state action tests actually exist.' Nevertheless, the state action question remains a critical one, serving as a prelude to the actual constitutional claim against a private party. Today, courts ask two basic questions to find state action: (1) Did the private entity engage in a traditional and exclusive public function? and (2) Is there a sufficient enough nexus between the Government and private conduct?7 A court need only answer one of the two questions affirmatively to find state action.
The following discussion makes it clear that the avoidance of the issue now was a transparent dodge. Given that, they don't have to grant cert on a future case teed up by a suit under SB8 and if they do I fear the vote will go the same way.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:51 PM on September 2, 2021
A scorching column from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo clearly labels the current Court ("corrupted and corrupt") and spells out what must be done (enact Roe v. Wade as legislation and increase the Supreme Court size to 13). It's really worth reading in full.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:30 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 8:30 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
the whole "private attorneys general" gambit seems to me beside the point, just a gimmick. the bill of rights protects individual rights against state action. the state is what made it unlawful to "abet" abortions in tx, regardless of who is the party enforcing it, a random person or an official. so the law is unconstitutional, same as it would be if tx made it a crime to abet an abortion.
so to those asking why blue states dont do this neat trick to put bounties on corporations or guns or whatever, the answer is that THOSE rights count (according to trump judges) but a woman's right to choose doesn't. laws like the former would get struck down immediately.
posted by wibari at 9:24 PM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
so to those asking why blue states dont do this neat trick to put bounties on corporations or guns or whatever, the answer is that THOSE rights count (according to trump judges) but a woman's right to choose doesn't. laws like the former would get struck down immediately.
posted by wibari at 9:24 PM on September 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Gimmicks is how you get rid of cases without reaching the issues. That's what happened. If the Supreme Court does eventually reach the issue on appeal of a suit brought under SB8, and upholds it then no matter how transparently political the holding the gimmick becomes the unassailable law of the land until the Court shifts or the Constitution is amended.
Elections matter.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:33 PM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Elections matter.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:33 PM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Or unless abortion rights are codified by Federal statute, that is.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:40 PM on September 2, 2021
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:40 PM on September 2, 2021
What is to stop thousands of Texans from claiming they heard Governor Abbot (for example) paid for an alleged mistress' abortion this month and each suing him for $10k?
The lack of a fill-in-the-blanks civil complaint? No D-I-Y civil litigation timeline and checklist? The $300 to $500 in filing fees and service?
posted by mikelieman at 1:47 AM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
The lack of a fill-in-the-blanks civil complaint? No D-I-Y civil litigation timeline and checklist? The $300 to $500 in filing fees and service?
posted by mikelieman at 1:47 AM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Those filing fees will be paid by "charities" in minutes.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:34 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:34 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Those filing fees will be paid by "charities" in minutes.
Well then, this weekend I'm going to look over a copy of the Texas rules of civil procedure.
posted by mikelieman at 7:18 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well then, this weekend I'm going to look over a copy of the Texas rules of civil procedure.
posted by mikelieman at 7:18 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Better read their rules of conduct too. You're not meant to use the tools of the opressors against them. That said, you can get O'Connor's for $200 (or $14/mo).
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:41 AM on September 3, 2021
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:41 AM on September 3, 2021
Over on Ask Metafilter:
Is Texas's new law banning abortion a rocket launcher that can be pointed anywhere, or am I missing something?
In having a relationship with a man who lives in Texas, would I be safe from the new abortion law if there was an accident?
Why haven't the Democrats passed a generalised law allowing abortions up to, say, 24 weeks?
posted by aniola at 2:01 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Is Texas's new law banning abortion a rocket launcher that can be pointed anywhere, or am I missing something?
In having a relationship with a man who lives in Texas, would I be safe from the new abortion law if there was an accident?
Why haven't the Democrats passed a generalised law allowing abortions up to, say, 24 weeks?
posted by aniola at 2:01 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm glad she didn't give a flying fuck what anyone thought.
Breyer apparently doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks, either, and because of that it's possible if not probable his seat will also be replaced with a conservative judge
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:12 PM on September 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Breyer apparently doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks, either, and because of that it's possible if not probable his seat will also be replaced with a conservative judge
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:12 PM on September 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
I just discovered this recent comment on empathy as it applies to the pandemic that I would like to share with this thread because I think it's a good fit here, too.
posted by aniola at 2:13 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 2:13 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
GoDaddy Is Giving Texas Abortion Snitching Site the Boot (Gizmodo, Sept. 3, 2021) After users threatened to boycott the internet domain service GoDaddy for hosting the newly-established tip line that allows Texans to anonymously snitch on private citizens they suspect of performing an abortion after six weeks or anyone who “aids or abets” such abortions in the state, the company abruptly announced that it is booting the site from its servers over terms of service violations.
“We have informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service,” Dan C. Race, a GoDaddy spokesman, told Gizmodo in an email. The company first informed the New York Times of the 24-hour window to find another hosting provider “late Thursday,” meaning it likely has just hours to do so or, presumably, it will go offline. [...] The site was established by Texas Right To Life, the anti-abortion group that has long crusaded against a woman’s right to choose in the Lone Star State.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:54 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
“We have informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service,” Dan C. Race, a GoDaddy spokesman, told Gizmodo in an email. The company first informed the New York Times of the 24-hour window to find another hosting provider “late Thursday,” meaning it likely has just hours to do so or, presumably, it will go offline. [...] The site was established by Texas Right To Life, the anti-abortion group that has long crusaded against a woman’s right to choose in the Lone Star State.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:54 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
the whole "private attorneys general" gambit seems to me beside the point, just a gimmick. the bill of rights protects individual rights against state action. the state is what made it unlawful to "abet" abortions in tx, regardless of who is the party enforcing it, a random person or an official. so the law is unconstitutional, same as it would be if tx made it a crime to abet an abortion.
You can see this in defamation law. The first amendment does not allow the government to let people sue each other for defamation without limit, even though it's nominally private parties suing each other. So if I created a law that allowed liberals to sue conservatives for being mean to them on Twitter, the law would be immediately enjoined and then struck down.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:01 PM on September 3, 2021
You can see this in defamation law. The first amendment does not allow the government to let people sue each other for defamation without limit, even though it's nominally private parties suing each other. So if I created a law that allowed liberals to sue conservatives for being mean to them on Twitter, the law would be immediately enjoined and then struck down.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:01 PM on September 3, 2021
It's mostly being left out of the current reporting, which isn't good, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case on Mississippi's 15 week ban is towards the end of its briefing period. You can find all briefs filed so far here.
CBS News in May, 2021:
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a blockbuster dispute over a Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, setting up a high-stakes showdown over the future of Roe v. Wade.
The battle will be the first test of limits on abortion access to go before the Supreme Court's expanded 6-3 conservative majority and could pave the way for more restrictions, as the dispute takes aim at the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe, which established a woman's right to an abortion. Arguments will likely be heard in the fall, during the high court's next term, with a decision expected by summer 2022.
The justices will specifically weigh whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, according to an order issued Monday. The high court's abortion cases have established a woman has a right to an abortion before fetal viability, which generally occurs around 24 weeks into a pregnancy.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:39 AM on September 4, 2021
CBS News in May, 2021:
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a blockbuster dispute over a Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, setting up a high-stakes showdown over the future of Roe v. Wade.
The battle will be the first test of limits on abortion access to go before the Supreme Court's expanded 6-3 conservative majority and could pave the way for more restrictions, as the dispute takes aim at the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe, which established a woman's right to an abortion. Arguments will likely be heard in the fall, during the high court's next term, with a decision expected by summer 2022.
The justices will specifically weigh whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, according to an order issued Monday. The high court's abortion cases have established a woman has a right to an abortion before fetal viability, which generally occurs around 24 weeks into a pregnancy.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:39 AM on September 4, 2021
and because of that it's possible if not probable his seat will also be replaced with a conservative judge
Leaving early doesn't ensure a liberal judge. Merrick Garland confirmation, anyone? Enough with these fantasies. It's internet tough guy talk and no one knows the future.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2021
Leaving early doesn't ensure a liberal judge. Merrick Garland confirmation, anyone? Enough with these fantasies. It's internet tough guy talk and no one knows the future.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2021
The U.S. Senate is currently controlled by the Democrats, but might not be after 2022 elections. It's a safe bet that whoever Biden would appoint would be confirmed. That's the point.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:59 AM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:59 AM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
The Justice Department is exploring “all options” to challenge Texas’s restrictive abortion law, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday, as he vowed to provide support to abortion clinics that are “under attack” in the state and to protect those seeking and providing reproductive health services. [...] Garland said the Justice Department has reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to “discuss our enforcement authorities.”
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack,” Garland said. (Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2021)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:05 PM on September 6, 2021
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack,” Garland said. (Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2021)
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:05 PM on September 6, 2021
A twitter thread on The United States of America v State of Texas.
posted by mittens at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2021
posted by mittens at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2021
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on Tuesday issued an executive order to restrict access to abortion medication and make it clear that medicine-induced abortions fall within state law requiring an in-person consultation with a physician. (AP, Sept. 7, 2021). [FWIW, there are ongoing medical personnel shortages in South Dakota.] From the governor's Tuesday press release:
Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed Executive Order 2021-12, which directs the South Dakota Department of Health to establish rules preventing telemedicine abortions in South Dakota. The executive order also restricts chemical abortions in the state. [...]
The executive order restricts telemedicine abortion in the following ways:
- Declares that abortion drugs may only be prescribed or dispensed by a physician who is licensed in South Dakota after an in-person examination;
- Blocks abortion-inducing drugs from being provided via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service;
- Prevents abortion-inducing drugs from being dispensed or provided in schools or on state grounds; and
- Reiterates that licensed physicians must ensure that Informed Consent laws are properly administered.
The executive order also directs the Department of Health to do the following:
- Develop licensing requirements for “pill only” abortion clinics;
- Collect empirical data on how often chemical abortions are performed as a percentage of all abortions, including how often women experience complications that require a medical follow-up; and
- Enhance reporting requirements on emergency room complications related to chemical abortion.
The Executive Order's title: "Serious Health Complications from Abortion-Inducing Drugs". The references at the end are mainly provided by an anti-abortion organization, the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The order's section on ectopic pregnancy risk ("A woman is 30% more likely to die from an ectopic pregnancy while undergoing an abortion than if she had an ectopic pregnancy but had not sought an abortion") appears to draw from a 1990 paper, Ectopic pregnancy concurrent with induced abortion: incidence and mortality: "From 1972 through 1985, 24 women who underwent an induced abortion died as a result of a concurrent ectopic pregnancy." The abortion-inducing drug mifepristone (aka RU-486) was synthesized in France in 1980, approved for use in abortions there in 1988, and received FDA approval in September 2000.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:03 PM on September 9, 2021
Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed Executive Order 2021-12, which directs the South Dakota Department of Health to establish rules preventing telemedicine abortions in South Dakota. The executive order also restricts chemical abortions in the state. [...]
The executive order restricts telemedicine abortion in the following ways:
- Declares that abortion drugs may only be prescribed or dispensed by a physician who is licensed in South Dakota after an in-person examination;
- Blocks abortion-inducing drugs from being provided via courier, delivery, telemedicine, or mail service;
- Prevents abortion-inducing drugs from being dispensed or provided in schools or on state grounds; and
- Reiterates that licensed physicians must ensure that Informed Consent laws are properly administered.
The executive order also directs the Department of Health to do the following:
- Develop licensing requirements for “pill only” abortion clinics;
- Collect empirical data on how often chemical abortions are performed as a percentage of all abortions, including how often women experience complications that require a medical follow-up; and
- Enhance reporting requirements on emergency room complications related to chemical abortion.
The Executive Order's title: "Serious Health Complications from Abortion-Inducing Drugs". The references at the end are mainly provided by an anti-abortion organization, the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The order's section on ectopic pregnancy risk ("A woman is 30% more likely to die from an ectopic pregnancy while undergoing an abortion than if she had an ectopic pregnancy but had not sought an abortion") appears to draw from a 1990 paper, Ectopic pregnancy concurrent with induced abortion: incidence and mortality: "From 1972 through 1985, 24 women who underwent an induced abortion died as a result of a concurrent ectopic pregnancy." The abortion-inducing drug mifepristone (aka RU-486) was synthesized in France in 1980, approved for use in abortions there in 1988, and received FDA approval in September 2000.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:03 PM on September 9, 2021
READ: Justice Department lawsuit against Texas over its abortion restrictions (CNN)
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:14 PM on September 9, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:14 PM on September 9, 2021
@spooknine: "Greg Abbott is not, in fact, stupid. This is a calculated political move by Texas's longest-serving governor seeing his career and future political ambitions flash before his eyes after an epic statewide blackout and catastrophic covid response."*
Satanic Temple set to challenge Texas abortion law on freedom of religion grounds - "'I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states — will be proud to see that Texas's robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion', said Temple cofounder Lucien Greaves in a statement... the Satanic Temple hopes to retain access to abortion pills using its Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights. Through the act, Native American populations are allowed to access the hallucinogenic peyote for their practices."
meanwhile in mexico...
Mexico's top court decriminalizes abortion in 'watershed moment' - "The Mexican ruling may lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies."
'Feeling free': women criminalized by Mexico's abortion bans celebrate ruling - "The ruling also offers increased security to members of the dozens of feminist collectives that for years have helped women induce abortions, using widely available medications such as misoprostol."
posted by kliuless at 11:33 PM on September 9, 2021
Satanic Temple set to challenge Texas abortion law on freedom of religion grounds - "'I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states — will be proud to see that Texas's robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion', said Temple cofounder Lucien Greaves in a statement... the Satanic Temple hopes to retain access to abortion pills using its Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights. Through the act, Native American populations are allowed to access the hallucinogenic peyote for their practices."
meanwhile in mexico...
Mexico's top court decriminalizes abortion in 'watershed moment' - "The Mexican ruling may lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies."
'Feeling free': women criminalized by Mexico's abortion bans celebrate ruling - "The ruling also offers increased security to members of the dozens of feminist collectives that for years have helped women induce abortions, using widely available medications such as misoprostol."
posted by kliuless at 11:33 PM on September 9, 2021
One legal/political commentator actually thinks the Texas abortion situation is "Justice Ginsburg's Parting Gift."
posted by PhineasGage at 5:40 AM on September 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 5:40 AM on September 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Huh. I get the crowing about, ‘what is the dog going to do now that it has actually caught the car?!’ but….for women this is untenable. Women as pawns in 4-dimensional chess? I do hope that people are lining up to counter-sue the men involved in putting their penis in a vagina. If one gets sued for having an abortion, another should get sued for abetting by putting that penis in there and ejaculating. Ejaculate somewhere else, men. Vaginas are closed in Texas.
posted by amanda at 7:08 AM on September 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by amanda at 7:08 AM on September 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
Not specifically a fan of that take. Using the phrase 'except of the coat-hanger variety' is both medically misinformed and... let's say blithe at best, but I'm leaning toward 'callous.'
posted by box at 7:22 AM on September 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 7:22 AM on September 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
If one gets sued for having an abortion, another should get sued for abetting by putting that penis in there and ejaculating.
There's a meme going around now that maybe women in Texas should ask for a $10K "security deposit" from men before having sex. One dude I know on Facebook posted it - and a clueless dude responded to say that "dang, that sounds expensive lol". I responded that "yes, it is expensive. But that's what women would get fined if a guy knocks them up, so...."
History has thus far not recorded his response.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:44 AM on September 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's a meme going around now that maybe women in Texas should ask for a $10K "security deposit" from men before having sex. One dude I know on Facebook posted it - and a clueless dude responded to say that "dang, that sounds expensive lol". I responded that "yes, it is expensive. But that's what women would get fined if a guy knocks them up, so...."
History has thus far not recorded his response.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:44 AM on September 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Notable (former) attorney to sovereign citizen tax cheats and convicted criminal Oscar Stilley has filed suit against the Texas doctor who admitted to performing an abortion in a Washington Post op-ed, so the courts may be forced to rule on the bounty law.
He's got such a bad case of brain worms that it's going to be really hard for any court to rule in his favor if they intend to keep even the tiniest fig leaf of legitimacy. It remains to be seen if they will use his history as an out to dismiss the case without considering the merits.
If it was a less serious issue, I'd be popping popcorn because there are always fireworks when Oscar is involved.
posted by wierdo at 2:11 AM on September 21, 2021
He's got such a bad case of brain worms that it's going to be really hard for any court to rule in his favor if they intend to keep even the tiniest fig leaf of legitimacy. It remains to be seen if they will use his history as an out to dismiss the case without considering the merits.
If it was a less serious issue, I'd be popping popcorn because there are always fireworks when Oscar is involved.
posted by wierdo at 2:11 AM on September 21, 2021
Dr. Braid is also being sued by another disbarred attorney, Felipe Gomez (KSAT, San Antonio), who identifies as pro-choice and hopes to see the law declared unconstitutional.
It's not exactly a privilege thing, or maybe it is, but it seems like there's a clear divide between the law talking guys and the people seeking abortions who are affected by this law. Fund Texas Choice, Texas Equal Access Fund, and West Fund are three abortion funds operating within the state.
posted by box at 5:02 AM on September 21, 2021
It's not exactly a privilege thing, or maybe it is, but it seems like there's a clear divide between the law talking guys and the people seeking abortions who are affected by this law. Fund Texas Choice, Texas Equal Access Fund, and West Fund are three abortion funds operating within the state.
posted by box at 5:02 AM on September 21, 2021
Op-Ed by Uma Thurman: The Texas abortion law is a human rights crisis for American women. I have followed the course of Texas’s radical antiabortion law with great sadness, and something akin to horror. Now, in the hope of drawing the flames of controversy away from the vulnerable women on whom this law will have an immediate effect, I am sharing my own experience...
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:00 PM on September 22, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:00 PM on September 22, 2021 [2 favorites]
In Attempt to Fend Off DOJ Lawsuit, Texas Argues Patients Are ‘Stimulating’ Interstate Commerce by Fleeing to Other States for Abortions (Law & Crime blog, Sept. 29, 2021)
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:51 PM on September 29, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:51 PM on September 29, 2021
From the excerpted portion:
In this case, the federal government does not bring a commerce claim, nor does it cite any actual evidence that the Texas Heartbeat Act burdens interstate commerce. What evidence that does exist in the record suggests that, if anything, the Act is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel.
The sophistry aimed at depriving the US AG of a cause of action may have opened the door to original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court if one or more of these states feels like suing over the burden to its system created by Texan medical refugees. Although I wouldn't be surprised if those suits between states nominally filed in the SCOTUS are delegated to some other court for most purposes.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:29 AM on September 30, 2021
In this case, the federal government does not bring a commerce claim, nor does it cite any actual evidence that the Texas Heartbeat Act burdens interstate commerce. What evidence that does exist in the record suggests that, if anything, the Act is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel.
The sophistry aimed at depriving the US AG of a cause of action may have opened the door to original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court if one or more of these states feels like suing over the burden to its system created by Texan medical refugees. Although I wouldn't be surprised if those suits between states nominally filed in the SCOTUS are delegated to some other court for most purposes.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:29 AM on September 30, 2021
Fund Texas Choice, Texas Equal Access Fund, and West Fund are three abortion funds operating within the state.
I actually wonder how long these will be able to keep operating in the state. Doesn't SB8 also make people who aid abortions liable? Or does it not count if the abortion isn't actually in Texas, even if the aiding/abetting is in Texas?
posted by BungaDunga at 6:29 PM on September 30, 2021
I actually wonder how long these will be able to keep operating in the state. Doesn't SB8 also make people who aid abortions liable? Or does it not count if the abortion isn't actually in Texas, even if the aiding/abetting is in Texas?
posted by BungaDunga at 6:29 PM on September 30, 2021
« Older The Red-Pilling of Kitson | The Kraken Busters Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by aniola at 11:06 PM on August 31, 2021 [7 favorites]