Unfortunately that makes her an outlaw in Texas doesn't it?
(not familiar with the details, but I thought I'd read they'll prosecute out-of-state procedures as well. Same with travelers passing through Texas to receive an abortion elsewhere)
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
278 points (98.6% liked)
News
23397 readers
3662 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There would be no penalty in this case. The law prohibits enforcement against the mother and activities that take place outside of the state are also not enforceable by Texas. The exception is if someone drives her to the state line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion or gives her money while both are situated in the State of Texas, although interesting would be a case where one is in Texas and the other isn't, bringing up the interstate commerce clause.
Texas allows medical exceptions. I have not yet read why this case did not qualify for the exception. Presumably because the court did not agree the mother's life was at serious risk? Has anyone a good read of the court's ruling?
Because Ken Paxton is a piece of shit. The judge heard the testimony from doctors and decided it should go ahead. Ol' Ken pushed it to the TSC because he knew they would sit on the case until she had the stillborn birth.
Republicans want to punish women simply because.
Don't get Paxton's play here, lose-lose proposition. Someone put yourself in his shoes and give me one reason this is a smart move.
Because it fulfills their goal of revenge against women for rejecting them, having rights, etc.
And that fulfills the goal of pleasing their bible-thumper and alt-right base, who seek vengeance against women for those and a myriad of other reasons.
That's a facile reply. Of course his base will love it, most of 'em, but what could he possibly gain by this?
And let's not pretend like its Paxton's personal mission to hate on women. From his point of view, this is pure politics. LOL, like he has some sort of moral code driving him.
Why am I supposed to care about your half-wit opinion about my reply? Address the substance of discussion. Don't waste my time with your ham-fisted attempt to put me down thinking it will get you anywhere.
This assclown's mOrAL cOdE is hating on women, to start.
Now try addressing that, and only that, and leave me out of it if you are capable of that. I know it's asking a lot
The only people who consider this a lose lose would not vote for him either way. But it galvanizes his base. Especially when you consider certain people would rather blame the mother. How they justify this blame is the only creativity i have seen from such people.
You're hitting at my point. His base is voting for him no matter what, so there's no political gain here. Not like those people were sitting on the fence, but any who were got pushed right the fuck off his side.
He's an extremist. If he's not extreme enough, someone more extreme will replace him.
He wants it to go to the Supreme Court.
And how well do you suppose the Supreme Court will love him for chunking a clear decision from a lower court? Conservative or liberal, judges want to take cases with at least a semblance of legal nuance.
The Court recently told Alabama that a lower court's ruling stands on voting fuckery and just today refused to hear a case regarding "pray the gay away" camps, again upholding a lower ruling to allow the ban.
That can be fought without the looming deadline of a pregnancy coming to term. Dunno if she's willing to go through with that, or if she's just not planning to ever return to Texas (it's not like, Cali, say, would ever extradite, and Texas sending troopers across state lines to bring her back is some Fugitive Slave Act 2: Electric Boogaloo shit that would absolutely not fly).
Hypothetically yes but good luck trying to enforce it against the Interstate commerce clause
You know, if Trump wins the election next year, they very well could try.
If Trump wins next year, the constitution will be null and void.
It already is to the SC