BladeRunner
Footballguy
The first time someone sues an abortion provider to try and enforce this is when the SCOTUS will likely intervene. Per Maurile's Politico article, it sounds like they want to wait for someone to bring a case first.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Enforcement Mechanism Of The Texas Abortion Law - Execution En Masse (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
The first time someone sues an abortion provider to try and enforce this is when the SCOTUS will likely intervene. Per Maurile's Politico article, it sounds like they want to wait for someone to bring a case first.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Well, yeah, I agree. I'm not a lawyer either but, IMO, this law clearly is an end-around to prevailing law. The problem is someone is going to have to spend $$$$ to resolve this issue, which sucks to begin with.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Texas Senate Bill 8 (Prior Session Legislation)
Bill Title: Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 90-1)
Status: (Passed) 2021-05-19 - Effective on 9/1/21
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961
******
What's stopping you from looking it up and finding out yourself?
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Why bother when there's hundreds of know-it-alls on the innerweb eager to show off how smart they are?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Direct Headline: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
By James Gallagher Health and science correspondent Published 15 July 2020
Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
Direct Headline: How Low Can America’s Birth Rate Go Before It’s A Problem?
By Stephanie H. Murray Jun. 9, 2021, at 10:00 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-low-can-americas-birth-rate-go-before-its-a-problem/
Direct Headline: The Economic Impact of Falling Birth Rates
12 September 2019
https://www.isa-world.com/news/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=485&cHash=8066cd77ac69cb1e4a967f1e527fafdd
****
Classically speaking, immigration will create economic benefits, in theory, but as as long haul strategy. Usually it requires an investment to be made and then the greater share of the return comes in the 2nd generation (Immigrants come over, take what jobs they can get, and their children have better opportunities and a better chance at increasing their education level/earning power)
Ironically, it's widely considered a large section of black America would take the brunt. Poor children from low to unskilled workers in urban areas would see a snowball effect. Given the current Democratic Party is one beholden to identity politics and intersectionality, this open contradiction is shockingly not all that surprising.
Feel free to unpack how the upfront economic hit means the back end juice is worth the squeeze on immigration as a blanket fix all.
dkp993
Footballguy
From a state that hasn’t figured out what the 1880’s Wild West did I’m not surprised.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Per the WSJ, the answer is no, there are no exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas Heartbeat Act, or SB 8, would ban most abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Because at the time, I was taking a break from yard work and was typing on my phone although I had a pretty good idea that it didn't. The WSJ confirms it.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Care to make a wager? Texas isn’t going blue anytime soon. Certainly not because of a law that’s likely extremely popular with Texas conservatives.
rockaction
Footballguy
This is the point of the thread. It's not about GG's fertility nonsense or the responses to it.
It's about the "man against man" element of the law and the theory behind it and its constitutionality, desirability, and efficacy from both a practical and philosophical point of view. Anything about ends of abortion law is just a red herring to the issue at hand, which is why Blade and Gekko are so keen to jump on it.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
The ability for this thing to be used as an election weapon is insane....as is the idea that this thing could be theoretcially ported to just about any issue.
Going to be interesting.
Going to be interesting.
-fish-
Footballguy
I've read the theory behind this twice, and I can't get past the fact that the basic premise is wrong and stands Marbury v. Madison on its head. Although it is based on a strict and narrow interpretation of the federal courts' authority, that simply isn't the way it's been interpreted in the history of our country.
It's a unique position and makes for an interesting academic debate, but in practice this simply can't be the way it works. As many have pointed out, it could be applied to just about any law to end-run the Constitution. This law will no doubt be determined to be unconstitutional. What's interesting is what Texas will do with that, since the premise of the law is such a ruling from the Supreme Court would only be binding on the state, and not the individual plaintiffs filing these actions. I suppose the SC could enjoin the Texas courts from hearing these cases.
It's a unique position and makes for an interesting academic debate, but in practice this simply can't be the way it works. As many have pointed out, it could be applied to just about any law to end-run the Constitution. This law will no doubt be determined to be unconstitutional. What's interesting is what Texas will do with that, since the premise of the law is such a ruling from the Supreme Court would only be binding on the state, and not the individual plaintiffs filing these actions. I suppose the SC could enjoin the Texas courts from hearing these cases.
rockaction
Footballguy
What's the basic premise, for those of us that spent last night studying the separation of powers aspect of all of this as it stems from political philosophy, especially the contract theorists and their separation of powers.
-fish-
Footballguy
The idea is that federal judicial review does not include the authority to strike down an unconstitutional statute. All a court can do is prevent the executive branch from enforcing it or to decline to enforce the law itself. Under this theory, even if a federal court determines the law to be unconstitutional it still exists on the books as written, and since there is no state actor enforcing this statute there is nothing to prevent individuals from continuing to file private actions under this law.
This is expressly contrary to Marbury v. Madison, which not only determined that federal courts had authority to strike down unconstitutional laws but a responsibility to do so.
GG's post has nothing to do with births within marriage. He's suggesting that marriage is declining, and two parent families are ending, this we need to encourage whatever other means are available to increase births, such as forcing unmarried women who don't want children to have them. Read it again.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
Why stop there? Sue every Republican member of the State House who voted for the act. By not making abortion a criminal offense, they are assisting abortions for anyone willing to pay the civil damages. Therefore, each of them is responsible for damages in any case where any other defendant is successfully sued.
ETA: Now that I think about it, if I'm representing any defendant in any such suit, I'm joining each and every House member as well as Abbott as an additional defendant. Do that in every case and see how fast they react.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Similar threads
