* I have yet to receive a single press release from an Illinois Republican politician praising the US Supreme Court’s ruling or the Texas law the high court allowed to stand. The Illinois House and Senate Republican leaders are both anti-abortion advocates, but they’ve been quiet. The Illinois Republican Party has been similarly mute. Heck, even US Rep. Mary Miller and Sen. Darren Bailey haven’t tweeted about it.
…Adding… US Rep. Miller and the rest of the state’s Republican delegation signed on to an amicus brief in late July asking the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Either the dog has finally caught the car and doesn’t know what to do with it, or they realize how unpopular the law is in Illinois with all-important suburban women, or both. The Democrats are not nearly so shy…
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Thursday that he’s “very concerned” about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to block a new Texas law banning most abortions in the state, and vowed Illinois would continue to welcome women from elsewhere who need reproductive health care.
“Shame on those Texas lawmakers for taking away, not just women’s rights, but women’s health,” Pritzker, a first-term Democrat, said at an unrelated news conference in Chicago. “Banning abortion does not keep women safe.”
A deeply divided high court allowed the Texas law to remain in force in the nation’s biggest abortion curb since the court legalized abortions nationwide almost half a century ago. The court voted 5-4 to deny an emergency appeal from abortion providers and others but also suggested that their order likely wasn’t the last word and that other challenges can be brought.
* NBC 5 takes a look at the Illinois impact…
Illinois has “very strong pro-reproductive rights laws,” said Carolyn Shapiro, professor of law and co-director of Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States.
So women’s rights in the state likely won’t be threatened by the Texas law “in the short term,” she said. […]
Shapiro noted that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and Congress debates the possibility of a nationwide abortion restriction, then the impacts could be felt in Illinois.
“If there are national efforts to change the law in Congress to impose different types of abortion bans - as Congress did with what they call the partial birth abortion ban, which the Supreme Court upheld - they could then… that would obviously have enormous effects here in Illinois and would be quite frightening.”
* Tribune…
Activists from both sides of the abortion debate believe Illinois will see an uptick in travel here for the procedure.
“I think we’re definitely going to be seeing higher abortion rates in Illinois,” Scheidler said. “That trend will continue as other states enact other pro-life measures, whether we’re talking about measures that have already been upheld by the Supreme Court or measures that are completely new like this Texas law.”
Thousands of women already travel to Illinois from other states each year to access abortions. In 2019, roughly 7,500 crossed state lines for the procedure, about 16% of all terminated pregnancies in Illinois that year. The number of out-of-state abortions has increased every year since 2014, according to Illinois Department of Public Health data.
While it’s impossible to know the reasons for each individual decision to travel for the procedure, many experts have attributed the overall rise to increasing restrictions in other states.
* Sun-Times editorial…
The Texas law actually bars state officials from enforcing the law. You won’t see Texas Rangers closing down abortion clinics that continue to perform abortions after six weeks. Instead, the law grants private individuals the authority to sue anybody — except the actual patient herself — who “aids and abets” such an abortion, including doctors, counselors and drivers.
The bounty is $10,000. That’s how much the State of Texas will pay if you sue and win. Plus, the state will pick up your legal bills. You don’t even have to have some connection to the abortion. You can live in Peoria and sue a stranger in Houston.
But what if you are the person who is sued and you win? Texas will not pay your legal fees. And the state sure as heck won’t fork over $10,000.
* AP…
A Missouri law that took effect last week allows citizens to sue local law enforcement agencies whose officers knowingly enforce any federal gun laws. Police and sheriff’s departments can face fines of up to $50,000 per occurrence. The law was backed by Republicans who fear Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration could enact restrictive gun policies.
In Kansas, a new law prompted by frustration over coronavirus restrictions allows residents to file lawsuits challenging mask mandates and limits on public gatherings imposed by counties. Last month, the Kansas Supreme Court allowed enforcement of the law to proceed while it considers an appeal of a lower court ruling that declared the law unconstitutional.
Utah also took a similar strategy on pornography last year, passing a law that allows citizens to sue websites that fail to display a warning about the effects of “obscene materials” on minors. Though adult-entertainment groups warned it was a violation of free speech, many sites have complied with the law to avoid the expense of a possible onslaught of legal challenges.
* Related…
* Texas abortion providers say they’ve been forced to turn away patients under new law: Rebecca Tong, who operates an abortion clinic in neighboring Oklahoma, said she’s become inundated with out-of-state calls. “The phones have just been ridiculous,” said Tong, co-executive director of Trust Women. “About two-thirds of our call volume right now is Texas people.”
* Texas’s new abortion law threatens women’s health and well-being: In 1947, for example, Chicago police captured eight women outside the building of a midwife-abortionist, put them in police cars and drove them to a medical office for internal pelvic examinations by a doctor searching for evidence of an abortion in progress. The state claimed that the police “escorted” the women, who “consented” to the exams and volunteered to testify. But there was nothing voluntary about the women’s role in this investigation; it was entirely coercive. Police had cursed at them, threatened to call a paddy wagon if they resisted and manhandled them into police cars.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:31 am:
When Rauner signed HB40… was primaried… nearly lost… and Rauner went on to lose to Pritzker by 15+ points…
Social issues where the GOP have made this are flat out losers in campaigns.
The Illinois GOP cult thinking to social issues on the right are not majority polling positions in this state… and the Illinois GOP does not want diversity to social issues inside its tent.
In actuality… it’s the Jeanne Ives and Jim Oberweis folks that made policy politics in social issues ruinous for the GOP
Suburban women should fear the Illinois GOP.
The reason that fear isn’t loud… is because the Illinois GOP is… silent.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:34 am:
“You won’t see Texas Rangers closing down abortion clinics”
Was confused for a second. Thought it was the baseball team.
Turning citizens against each other, very communist/authoritarian. Those sharpies, all this time they’re howling for freedom and against communism.
- Jocko - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:35 am:
==About two-thirds of our call volume right now is Texas people.==
Elections have consequences. The clinic might want to include a link to voter registration.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:40 am:
Fox News hasn’t found anytime in its 24 hour daily broadcast to report on this major national story either.
https://politicalwire.com/2021/09/03/fox-news-ignores-texas-abortion-story/
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:43 am:
When I think about *all* the folks who stood up to be counted and spoke and questioned HB40 and asked for “No” votes…
Why are those GOP members of the Illinois House and Senate *not* applauding Texas.
I mean, I can think of a member who spoke on the House floor against HB40… has that member applauded Texas?
- DuPage Guy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:45 am:
You can be sure that bounty provision is going to get adopted by Democrats as well even before/if it gets wiped out. Aid and abet someone who uses a gun in a murder? $10k. Breaks environmental laws? $10k. Hate speech on the internet? $10k.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:46 am:
Just wondering………what are the R’s planning to do with all the unwanted children? Are they building orphanages? Are they building new child care centers and elementary schools?
- Huh? - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:47 am:
“the dog has finally caught the car and doesn’t know what to do with it”
An apt description of the situation.
- Pundent - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:47 am:
The GOP is the proverbial dog that caught the car on this issue. Now that the Texas law has gone into effect they don’t want to deal with the blowback it will bring. It’s also a bit of a quandary to on the one hand deny a woman’s choice at 6 months while refusing to support mask and vaccine mandates.
- DuPage Saint - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:49 am:
What on earth could the freedom loving my body my choice anti vaxer anti masker keep the government out of my health medical choices Republicans day about a woman’s choice that doesn’t reek of hypocrisy?
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:49 am:
Republicans made the mistake of actually implementing something around this. Abortion was always supposed to be an issue-based item for them to campaign on, not something which ever got accomplished into law.
Dog finally catches car. And like the dog, they have no idea or plan on what to do next.
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:51 am:
Talking about loss of freedom. State encouraged vigilantism.
- Moe Berg - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:51 am:
Trumpian Texas - abortion, Covid catastrophe, energy grid failure, voting rights attack - has the potential to become a case study/poster child for Dems next year.
“If you don’t want your state or our country to look like TX, vote Dem.”
Illinois Dems should start rotating that into their messaging now.
“This is what we’ve done in Illinois since gettin’ rid of fake Texas cowboy Rauner and this is what we are fighting against.”
- Cheryl44 - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:54 am:
DuPage, this isn’t about people–it’s about women. Two different things to the GOP.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 10:54 am:
=== When I think about *all* the folks who stood up to be counted and spoke and questioned HB40 and asked for “No” votes…===
From the HGOP, press release…
===… and her Republican colleagues stood throughout the debate as a sign of respect of the unborn.”===
They stood up… and now they are silent today?
“Why?”
- Anon221 - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:03 am:
Just waiting to see if DeVore tries to cash in on this. I’m sure his nose it twitchin’.
- low level - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:04 am:
More then anything - even more then the map perhaps - this may increase the number of Democratic legislators next year.
- Gene Masseth - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:05 am:
For Republicans, abortion is no more than a campaign issue to fire up the base. Similar to immigration reform for Democrats, just an issue to campaign on. Both parties have had total control at the national level sometime in the last 15 years, and both done nothing about these issues.
- Amalia - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:07 am:
The legislature made Illinois safe for women. But I fear the courts. and I’m hoping the new Supreme Court map ensures that the Court stays in the mind of pro choice. Take no chances.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:09 am:
===Both parties===
You can’t “whatabout” this issue in Texas now with, especially, suburban women.
There’s a state where bounties, actual bounties, exist when it comes to abortion.
Can Illinois afford Republican legislators that may want bounties… as women exercise their right to choose?
Dogs catching cars are rare… still haven’t seen a dog know what to do with the caught car.
- Lt Guv - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:19 am:
And both parties haven’t had “total” control in DC at respective times recently. That requires 60 votes in the Senate which has not been seen in a while.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:19 am:
=the dog has finally caught the car and doesn’t know what to do with it=
That about sums it up.
- Fly like an eagle - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:20 am:
So if Texans can sue those who cause abortion oil refineries must be very nervous. There is a lot of evidence that airborne pollution cause silent abortions.
- Arsenal - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:21 am:
Anecdotal, I know, but I’ve had a few conservative friends tell me they’re uneasy with the law, at least the “bounty” part of it.
There’s also still a fair chance it gets struck down or heavily revised. So maybe Republicans just don’t want to go out on a limb until they see the final product.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:24 am:
=== There’s also still a fair chance it gets struck down or heavily revised.===
By November of 2022?
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:30 am:
=== There is a lot of evidence that airborne pollution cause silent abortions.===
I can see some environmentalists trying this. It might be a long shot but since the defendant has to bear all legal fees they would have nothing to lose.
- Soccermom - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:44 am:
We need to stop pushing back on the whole “heartbeat” thing. Embryos don’t have “hearts” — they have electrical pulses that will eventually make the heart start to beat.
- Chicago Blue - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:54 am:
@Arsenal
The law wasn’t stayed by the Supreme Court. It IS final. They are cowards who know this is a losing political issue that they only use to rile up their evangelical base.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:57 am:
NPR
===The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.===
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:58 am:
=== Anecdotal, I know, but I’ve had a few conservative friends tell me they’re uneasy with the law, at least the “bounty” part of it.===
Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts, brother of the Cubs’ owners, announced that he intends for Nebraska’s unicam to pass the same law there. Pete also is an owner of the Cubs. Think about that before you renew your season tickets.
- illini - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 11:59 am:
My Congresswoman Mary “all I ever do is complain and agitate” Miller has posted several pieces on her Facebook page with original sources being the normal right wing news sources. The Federalist and Breitbart are her idea of quality journalism.
- RNUG - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:01 pm:
If you take the long view (the wheels of justice grind slowly), much ado about not much. Everyone is celebrating or complaining (depending on your point of view) prematurely.
Let’s take a step back. SCOTUS ruled on a request for an emergency stay, and rejected it on procedural grounds, not substantive grounds. In other words, the plaintiffs didn’t prove a case of sufficient harm at this time for an emergency stay before the law was challenged through normal court proceedings.
If you read the majority opinion, the court made it crystal clear they were only ruling on the stay request, NOT the legality of the law itself, and that SCOTUS expects there to be challenges through the court system.
In other words: bring us a case of proven harm and the court may rule differently.
- zatoichi - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:05 pm:
If Texas wants this are they also going to be there to cover all pre-birth care, all following child and mother health care, future daycare, education, parental support, easier adoption, food/housing programs, employment issues DCFS type services, and mental health. How many Texas legislators who signed this will personally adopt a child for a mother that simply cannot take care of her baby. To stay consistent supporters should also be against death penalty and be for Covid mask/vax to keep people alive.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:08 pm:
RNUG, with respect, the Court abdicated it’s responsibility to uphold precedent and styled law. On its face, the Texas law is a violation of Roe v Wade, which found a right to privacy.
That means 5 Justices don’t believe Roe is the law of the land. And the cowards accomplished this without bothering to explain or to hear arguments. Dereliction of duty is the kindest way to describe the Court’s ruling.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:08 pm:
*settled law*
- Occasional Quipper - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:18 pm:
The fact that we’re talking about folks not saying something when we expected them to really shows how divided our country has become.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:18 pm:
===That means 5 Justices don’t believe Roe is the law of the land. And the cowards accomplished this without bothering to explain or to hear arguments. Dereliction of duty is the kindest way to describe the Court’s ruling. ===
What’s it we say around here? Feature, not a bug.
This is a feature of the GOP. This is their intent. This is what they wanted.
Where applicable every Democrat should campaign on this issue regardless of whether or not the Republican in question has made a comment. Make them denounce it. Make them explain the exact difference between their version of turning women into chattel and the Texas version.
Then when they’re done with that, make them explain why there’s a child sex trafficker caucusing with the GOP in congress even if, but especially if they’re just running for school board.
Even if the player rides the bench the entire season they still get the Superbowl ring. These guys are on the same team. They own what the GOP has done and will continue to do.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:20 pm:
===In other words, the plaintiffs didn’t prove a case of sufficient harm at this time for an emergency stay before the law was challenged through normal court proceedings.===
Perhaps the universe will cooperate and no one will be impregnated by their rapist before the court issues a ruling.
- PublicServant - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:20 pm:
=== Illinois Republicans continue silence ===
Believe me, they’re dancing on the inside. Pain is joy for them.
- Pundent - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:21 pm:
=If you take the long view (the wheels of justice grind slowly), much ado about not much.=
I’m not sure that a woman in Texas who is realizing she’s pregnant today takes much comfort in the long view. Nor do the clinics in that state which are now closing.
- Pundent - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:27 pm:
=The fact that we’re talking about folks not saying something when we expected them to really shows how divided our country has become.=
The decision to stay silent is as much an action as speaking up. Politicians are routinely criticized when they choose this path. Don’t believe me? Wait until the next controversial issue makes its way to the floor of the house and we’re talking about the number of “present” votes that were cast.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:29 pm:
===Believe me, they’re dancing on the inside. Pain is joy for them.===
Wait till they have to run on something that happened in Texas and the fear Illinois Republicans are dangerous to Illinois women.
Not much joy in that.
They “stood” during HB40 debate… not a soul standing now?
- Perrid - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:29 pm:
Roe hasn’t been overturned yet, and I wonder if that has anything to do with the silence. Why take a premature victory lap that could make a bunch of people mad only to have your “victory” tossed out months later? I’m probably overthinking it, though
- Jocko - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:30 pm:
==how divided our country has become.==
It feels like they keep pushing religious freedom on us…so long as it is THEIR religion.
- Nick - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:35 pm:
The GOP writ large has benefited from the abortion debate being in political limbo for the last few decades. Able to take as rhetorically strident pro-life views as possible while in effect having the unelected courts limit their agendam
If that’s truly ending then suddenly they’re going have to eat the costs of actually passing abortion bans.
- Lurker - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:44 pm:
There is definitely some strategy to it as none of the Republicans are tweeting about it. And for Ted Cruz to be silent about a Texas thing is big. Is it possible they are all remembering Trump was strongly pro-choice for 60 years?
- Scott Fawell's Cellmate - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:46 pm:
Uh oh. GOP planning for the mid terms just got drove into a ditch. You can see it by what is - and is not - on Fox, OAN and other GOP outlets.
GOP to suburban women: What about the women in Afghanistan?
Dems to suburban women: What about the women in Texas?
- Blue Dog l - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:47 pm:
It will be interesting to see which social issue suburban women are most upset by, abortion or runaway crime.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:54 pm:
=== abortion or===
When Republicans tout this Texas law…
Can’t imagine Cosgrove or Personal PAC being silent about how dangerous Illinois Republicans are to women and choice.
But… you keep thinking you’re a swing voter… Sure.
- ZC - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:57 pm:
I think Republicans can debate a law banning abortions. They might be able to debate this “turn your neighbor in” provision.
But this law forces a Texas woman to have a baby if she’s impregnated by her rapist. And while the rapist can’t directly file a $10,000 suit against her, I don’t see how the law possibly prohibits a friend of the rapist from doing so.
Yeah, Republicans don’t want to be drawn into a defense of that. Not in IL, definitely, and not much anywhere.
- Pundent - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:59 pm:
=It will be interesting to see which social issue suburban women are most upset by, abortion or runaway crime.=
Suburban women don’t seem to be talking about runaway crime. Probably because we don’t see as much of that in the suburbs as downstate Republicans, pardon me “swing voters’ do.
- Primate - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 12:59 pm:
Where does Congressman Davis stand on this issue. He is currently in Congress and may want to hold a bigger role in the state wide Republican party here in Illinois. Pretty fair question?
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:01 pm:
- much ado about not much. -
Another old white dude whose only worry in the world is that no one touches his pension. To h@#l with anyone else’s problems.
You’re a disgrace.
- JS Mill - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:09 pm:
=What on earth could the freedom loving my body my choice anti vaxer anti masker keep the government out of my health medical choices Republicans day about a woman’s choice that doesn’t reek of hypocrisy?=
And there’s the rub, especially in Illinois. The radical right have used the “my body, my choice” as a cudgel for COVID and now they have set themselves up to be absolutely pantsed over the abortion issue in Illinois.
Also, nice to see RNUG comment here, I was getting worried. Much respect sir.
- Roadrager - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:11 pm:
Those of you who foresee this as problematic for Republicans come election time need to consider the concurrent efforts underway by the GOP in regard to elections. Laws enforced by mob rule and elections where vote totals do not matter: The grand Republican vision.
- MisterJayEm - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:14 pm:
“Abortion was always supposed to be an issue-based item for them to campaign on, not something which ever got accomplished into law.”
If you look at the voting restrictions being enacted by GOP administrations, you will see that their strategy has very clearly shifted from winning election campaigns to controlling election counts.
If they can successfully control who can vote and who’s bird are counted, the unpopularity of their actions will be electorally irrelevant.
– MrJM
- Blue Dog - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:18 pm:
Can a person be considered a Democrat if they don’t support abortion? Is there some sort of litmus test?
- RNUG - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:19 pm:
Excitable Boy, you don’t have a clue where I come down on the issue itself.
I was simply commenting on the mechanics of the actual legal proceedings that occurred. There is a certain,high, standard for emergency stays, and 5 Justices apparently thought that request did not meet the standard.
Yes, the Texas law stands for the moment. I don’t expect the entire Texas law to be upheld when it goes through the proper process and arguments are held. At least part of it, and maybe all of it, could be ruled unconstitutional. But we won’t know that for a year or two until it has been properly briefed and argued.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:20 pm:
=== Can a person be considered a Democrat if they don’t support abortion? Is there some sort of litmus test?===
That’s just trolling
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:21 pm:
===That’s just trolling ===
It’s his entire raison d’etre.
- Lucky Pierre - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:21 pm:
Voting restrictions?
So you think emergency measures enacted during a pandemic by the executive branch that were not lawfully passed by the state legislatures should remain in effect in perpetuity?
Never let a crisis go to waste
- MisterJayEm - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:30 pm:
“If you take the long view (the wheels of justice grind slowly), much ado about not much.”
I’m not sure that the women forced to carry a pregnancy to term in the next 18-24 months will take great comfort from that.
– MrJM
- Amalia - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:30 pm:
Tom Morello’s Twitter feed has a post from a guy in Brooklyn who lists the Texas site where you can report on a woman. file reports that may….or may not….be real. the system will be filled!
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:36 pm:
===were not lawfully passed===
How can anything be not lawfully passed?
Voter suppression is real, otherwise why try to lower historic turnout with restrictions? Easy, you may not like the outcomes.
- PublicServant - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:40 pm:
=== It’s his entire raison d’etre. ===
Kinda sad, but true.
- Just wait - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:41 pm:
Just wait until other Republican controlled states now pass similar laws. Perhaps with a provision that allows bounty hunters to sue providers in other states, if the provider advertises the availability of services inside the state.
- PublicServant - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:42 pm:
=== So you think emergency measures enacted during a pandemic by the executive branch that were not lawfully passed by the state legislatures should remain in effect in perpetuity? ===
Yes. Thanks for asking.
- Nick - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:52 pm:
There’s something to be said too here just how egregious the majority’s reasoning was here, for why they chose to not stop the law from coming into force. Because it’s private individuals and not state actors visiting the harm here, they claim they.ocan’t do anything.
It reminds me a lot of United States v. Cruikshank which basically broke efforts to secure black Civil rights in the south.
- JS Mill - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:59 pm:
=That’s just trolling=
Is a troll a person? What is the litmus test for that?
- Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:32 pm:
GQP: Oh, I see you’re pregnant
Woman: I was raped
GQP: Congratulations on the new addition to your family (banned punctuation)
I don’t know what’s going to happen in 2022, but I would expect at least a few extra Congressional Dems get elected than we would’ve seen had this not happened. One can hope at least. The ‘you have to keep your rapist’s kid’ argument just doesn’t seem like a solid one to me.
- Asteroid of Caution - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:33 pm:
Can’t believe I’m going to say this but …
Bruce Rauner should tape a message:
“You’re welcome”
- Jibba - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:49 pm:
===emergency measures enacted during a pandemic by the executive branch===
Bit of a red herring here since making isn’t really part of the grand goals of the Democratic Party.
- clec dcn - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:57 pm:
I cannot support abortion in any way, shape or form, but it seems to just keep dividing people. Throwing it to politics and the courts just make it the hot button topic. I wish for a better way to end abortion but reality says only on the individual level of belief. The hope that things might change that it never be needed. I am in the minority. I do think RUNG has the good point on what happened.
- Homebody - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:00 pm:
@RNUG: == I was simply commenting on the mechanics of the actual legal proceedings that occurred. ==
This is a joke. It has to be. Unless you’re saying that the entire conservative wing of the Supreme Court just suddenly forgot what the words “irreparable harm” mean?
There is a reason every single abortion law case has always included a stay until the decision is made. This may come as a surprise to you, but abortions are somewhat time sensitive.
Either you legitimately believe what the ‘conservatives’ wrote in their order, which makes you wildly ignorant about prior jurisprudence, or you’re being as dishonest as they are.
- Jocko - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:24 pm:
==I cannot support abortion in any way, shape or form==
Since God is perfect, I don’t believe in cancer causing harm and deny your right to chemotherapy. See how easy that is?
- Blue Dog - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:27 pm:
Yesterday I commented, I dont meddle into other folks Healthcare. I feel the same about abortion. Mrs Blue Dog on the other hand is rabid on the issue. I voted for B. OBAMA in 2008, fully knowing his position on abortion. Does that make me a Democrat? A Republican? Or simply a troll….
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:28 pm:
=== So you think emergency measures enacted during a pandemic by the executive branch that were not lawfully passed by the state legislatures should remain in effect in perpetuity? ===
No. Because that’s not what has happened. The Executive orders were issued pursuant to a law passed by the ILGA. No There has been no successful challenge to the Gov’s authority under that law. They also are not in perpetuity. They’re time-limited and renewed only on the basis of a continued emergency.
- Wally - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:29 pm:
==There is a reason every single abortion law case has always included a stay until the decision is made. This may come as a surprise to you, but abortions are somewhat time sensitive.==
It has nothing to do with time sensitivity. It has everything to do with who is the defendant. In all of the other cases, the court could enjoin the AG or other government official from enforcing the law. In this case, the government is expressly prohibited from enforcing the law. So who do you serve a restraining order on saying they can’t enforce the law?
- Dotnonymous - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:30 pm:
“I cannot support abortion in any way, shape or form”
So don’t get one…it’s your choice.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:33 pm:
===It has nothing to do with time sensitivity.===
Do you know anything about… pregnancy?
I expect adoption in Texas to triple or quadruple now.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:36 pm:
===So who do you serve a restraining order on saying they can’t enforce the law?===
The bounty hunters can rest easy. No one is stopping them.
- Wally - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:52 pm:
==The bounty hunters can rest easy. No one is stopping them.==
Not until they’ve identified themselves at least. At that point, then something may be done. Injunctions are issued against persons. Therefore, you can enjoin the agent of enforcement. Normally that’s an easily identifiable person like an Attorney General. Here–it’s not, at least until such agent of enforcement raises their head.
I tried to link to an explainer in the Washington Post on the procedural legal issues at play, but I think it understandably got caught up in the approval process. Just google Washington Post and Henry Olsen. He does a better job than I explaining it, but that’s why he gets paid the big bucks.
- Wally - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:03 pm:
I should also make it clear–I’m not saying that the law is a good idea, etc… I actually think the contrary.
I’m just trying in my own poor way to 1) Explain the legal procedural issues involved and the court’s reasoning for not issuing the stay; and 2) explain why this is different in an important way from pretty much every other abortion case that has come before the court in recent years.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:08 pm:
=== Not until they’ve identified themselves at least===
You do realize bounty hunting is in its nature “not easy”
A stay would’ve stopped folks from bounty hunting, that’s the point.
A mechanism in this law is the $10,000
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:10 pm:
“Can a person be considered a Democrat if they don’t support abortion?
Not for D politicians. Lipinsky was the last local and nationally only one or two left, most notably Henry Cuellar TX
https://tinyurl.com/4fvv3jxn
“By Day’s count, there are just two reliable pro-life Democrats left in the House: Henry Cuellar of Texas and Ben McAdams of Utah”
- Wally - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:24 pm:
==A stay would’ve stopped folks from bounty hunting, that’s the point.==
A stay against who? Who does the court enjoin? Not what–the court has said that they don’t enjoin laws, they enjoin people from enforcing such laws. Who do you issue the injunction against, and then serve them with the injunction?
For example, if I want to get a stay against Mississippi’s anti-abortion law, I file a complaint against the Attorney General and ask for a court order asking the court to order the AG not to enforce said law. If I prevail, the court issues an injunction against the Attorney General ordering him/her not to enforce the law. If the AG does so anyways, he/she could be found in contempt.
Here the Attorney General and all other government agents are expressly forbidden from enforcing the law. So I go to the court, asking for relief. The court only listens to “cases and controversy,” so I need to have a plaintiff (that’s easy–it’s me) and a defendant. You then need to ask for the court for specific relief against the specific defendant, like a court order (an injunction) not to do something.
That’s the issue at play. Not whether this is a constitutionally sustainable law(that is and will continue to be litigated). It’s, who is the defendant, and if I issue a stay against any given defendant, that only applies to that defendant and against no other potential future defendant, making an injunction almost pointless.
So I ask again–who is the named defendant that the complaint requesting injunctive relief is served upon?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:29 pm:
=== A stay against who? Who does the court enjoin?===
===”Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny,” (Justice) Sotomayor wrote, “a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”
Under the bill, private citizens will be able to file civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone who helps women get an abortion, including those who escort a woman to a clinic or help her pay for the procedure. If a plaintiff is successful in such a suit, they are entitled to at least $10,000, according to the bill.
“The Texas State Legislature has deputized the state’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that the state made this decision because federal constitutional challenges to state laws are usually made against state officers in charge of those laws.
Putting the onus on “citizen bounty hunters,” she said, makes it more complicated for federal courts to get involved.
“The state’s gambit worked,” Sotomayor wrote. “…It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.”
“The Act is a breathtaking act of defiance — of the Constitution, of this Court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas,” she continued. “The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”===
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 4:31 pm:
- Wally -
The majority feels bounty hunting and deputizing citizens is fine.
Sotomayor was in the minority.