Jump to content

Texas' 6-week abortion law goes into effect, clinics had already begun turning away patients


Valin
 Share

Recommended Posts

texas-abortion-clinics-begin-turning-away-patients-new-law-goes-effect
Just The News

The new law will ban most abortions at the six-week mark

Sophie Mann

September 1, 2021

At midnight on Wednesday, a newly restrictive abortion law went into effect in Texas, where some clinics had already begun turning away patients.

 

Since the middle of last month, Planned Parenthood centers in Texas that provide abortion services ceased scheduling abortion appointments for after Sept. 1, a decision brought about by the new law, which bans abortions as early as six weeks into term.

The law will prohibit roughly 90% of the type of abortions that take place in the state and allow individuals to sue abortion providers or anyone else who may have helped someone get an abortion past the six-week mark.

(Snip)

Several abortion providers filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court this week to block the law, though the Court has not yet weighed in. 

_________________________________________________________________________

DU

Every recording artist or entertainer, every athlete, every comedian, should cancel their tour dates in Texas. Today. Right now. Don’t wait another second. Don’t bring money & business to a state that has put $10k bounties on women’s heads. #TexasTaliban #RoeVWade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Narrative Speaks....You Will Agree, or there Will be Consequences.

Is This the End of Roe v. Wade?

Anti-abortion forces in Texas seem supremely confident that the Roberts court will be willing to administer the killing blow to reproductive rights in America.

Matt Ford

Sept. 1 2021

The Supreme Court is already set to hear a major case on abortion rights, Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, later this year. It’s widely believed that the court’s six-justice conservative majority could hand down a ruling that sharply limits or overturns Roe v. Wade—an outcome that the state of Mississippi and its allies explicitly asked for last month. But it turns out that the court may have an even earlier chance this week to signal how far it will go to dismantle abortion rights.

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, involves a Texas law known as S.B. 8. It was signed into law in May and is set to go into effect on September 1. S.B. 8 aims to effectively ban abortions after doctors can detect cardiac activity in the fetus, which usually occurs around six weeks after conception. In practical terms, the new law is a near-total ban on abortion since it falls well after most women realize they are pregnant. And in legal terms, it plainly violates the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion rights since Roe was decided by effectively banning abortions that take place prior to viability.

(Snip)

So what makes S.B. 8 so different? Most abortion-related cases, including the ones I mentioned above, involve state and local officials who try to impose limits on access to the procedure. S.B. 8 takes a more convoluted approach. The statute is instead enforced by private citizens, who are empowered to file a civil lawsuit in Texas state courts against anyone who has performed an abortion or assisted in its performance, or who may do so in the future. In fact, the statute explicitly forbids state and local officials from filing the lawsuits themselves.

State courts must then issue an injunction against the defendant to bar them from doing so in the future. Under S.B. 8, the abortion provider or assistant must also pay the person who sues them at least $10,000—a state-mandated bounty for anti-abortion litigation, if you will. It’s not unusual for states to create causes of action so that citizens can sue one another. But it’s striking to see that power weaponized for culture-war fodder. Imagine if a state legislature allowed vaccinated people to sue their unvaccinated neighbors and co-workers, or if state legislators authorized drive-by lawsuits against gun stores that sold handguns and certain types of rifles.

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-Life Win: SCOTUS Lets Texas Six Week Abortion Ban Stand

In a pro-life victory, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 on Wednesday not to block the new Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while legal challenges to that law proceed in lower courts.

A narrow majority of justices held that the abortion-provider plaintiffs had failed to meet the high standard required for the Supreme Court to issue an injunction blocking a law before it goes into effect.:snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Somethings people forget 1. The Nazis didn't come up with Action T4 (euthanasia program) all by them selves. 2. Many intellectuals either supported, went along with,  or turned a blind eye to what was going on.

Dick Hanania it appears would fit right in, and so nicely in 1930's Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valin said:

 

Somethings people forget 1. The Nazis didn't come up with Action T4 (euthanasia program) all by them selves. 2. Many intellectuals either supported, went along with,  or turned a blind eye to what was going on.

Dick Hanania it appears would fit right in, and so nicely in 1930's Germany.

 

Lives Not Worth Living: The Nazi Eugenic Dream In Our Own Time

History shows us what happens when some lives are deemed more valuable than others.

9/12/14

What do the Aktion T4 sterilization and euthanasia program and new genetic techniques of prenatal diagnosis or “designer babies” have in common?

Today’s news reminds us of our society’s obsession with “normality,” or more accurately, with “perfection.” We hear of advances in widespread prenatal diagnostics, for the purpose of avoiding at all costs the birth of a child with any kind of disability; and genetic selection or “designer babies,” a trend that could end up creating two classes of citizens—those who can afford that kind of selection, and those who can’t.

While taking into account the differences between epochs and the techniques used, both advances are worryingly similar to the Nazi sterilization and euthanasia program Aktion T4, whose main objective was to improve the race.

Is it reasonable to think that these new advances in the field of genetics have similar objectives to those the Nazis sought? Are we facing the possibility of the Nazi dream coming true in our own time?

Aktion T4: "Life not worth living”

(Snip)

In the case of euthanasia, the social pressure is reflected in the fact that in Western societies, there is more and more promotion of an idea that, faced with a life not worth living, the best solution is “death with dignity” without offering alternatives to the patient.

It is worth remembering that, without looking too far, we can find the example of an Italian government minister who, in March of 2006, compared the Dutch euthanasia law to Nazism. Carlo Giovanardi, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, was referring to the Nazi child euthanasia program Aktion T4.

“Nazi legislation and Hitler’s ideas are re-emerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children,” Giovanardi said.

The difference today: Whereas a primary argument for the Aktion T4 program was the national sentiment of patriotism, “it’s good for the country,” nowadays the argument is “helping those in need,” making the ill feel like they are a burden and that it is better to put an end to the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draggingtree

EMERGENCY DOCKET

In 5-4 vote, Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion ban in place

By Amy Howe on Sept. 2 at 2:26 a.m.

  • The court declined to block a Texas law that prohibits abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.
  • The one-paragraph midnight ruling came after a day of inaction that allowed the law to go into effect.
  • Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett formed the conservative five-justice majority.
  • Roberts joined the three liberals (Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) in dissent. :snip: 

·       

·      SCOTUS FOCUS

·      Supreme indifference: What the Texas case signals about the court’s treatment of abortion

·        By Mary Ziegler on Sept. 1 at 3:28 p.m.

·        The court’s failure to act promptly on the Texas abortion law represents a shift in how the court has handled the abortion issue and how it has treated other types of emergency requests alleging constitutional violations. :snip: 

·       
·      EMERGENCY DOCKET

·      Texas abortion ban goes into effect after justices fail to act

·        By Amy Howe on Sept. 1 at 9:38 a.m.

·        S.B. 8, which deputizes private citizens to enforce a six-week abortion ban through civil lawsuits, took effect early Wednesday morning after the court did not act on emergency request seeking to block the law. :snip: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Narrative Speaks!

How A Bunch Of Men Came Up With The Texas Abortion Law That May Overturn Roe

The law circumvents norms by charging private individuals with the power to enforce it via lawsuits against their neighbors.

Jessica Gresko and Paul J. Weber

Sept. 4 2021

The road to a Texas law that bans most abortions in the state, sidestepping for now the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, began in a town called Waskom, population 1,600.

(Snip)

Texas’ abortion law S.B. 8 follows a model first used in Waskom to ban abortion within its boundaries in 2019. The novel legal approach used by the city on Texas’ border with Louisiana is one envisioned by a former top lawyer for the state.

 

Right to Life East Texas director Mark Lee Dixon, 36, a Southern Baptist minister, championed Waskom’s abortion ban. Through his state senator, Bryan Hughes, he met Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former top lawyer for the state of Texas. Mitchell became his attorney and advised him on crafting the ordinance, Dixon said in an interview.

The ordinance shields Waskom from lawsuits by saying city officials can’t enforce the abortion ban. Instead, private citizens can sue anyone who performs an abortion in the city or assists someone in obtaining one. The law was largely symbolic, however, because the city did not have a clinic performing abortions.

Nearly three dozen other cities in the state followed Waskom’s lead. Among them is Lubbock, where a Planned Parenthood clinic stopped performing abortions this year as a result.

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is NOT Complicated at all. The question is Does some have right to kill another human just because it exists? I dare someone/anyone to put it differently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas senator debunks left-wing misinformation about new Heartbeat Act

In a move that Hughes said has surprised Texas Republicans, abortion clinics in Texas have reportedly stopped performing abortions on babies with heartbeats.

Mary Margaret Olohan

September 6, 2021

(Daily Caller News Foundation) — Abortion advocates who insist Texas’ Heartbeat Act places bounties on pregnant women’s heads are misrepresenting the legislation, Republican Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes told the Daily Caller News Foundation Friday.

“I want to be very clear,” Hughes said. “There are no claims against the mother. We want to make sure folks realize that … I read a couple of places saying the mothers would receive criminal penalties. There are no criminal penalties in this bill at all. It’s driven by private civil enforcement against the doctor and against people who aid and abet the doctor in doing illegal abortions.”

The new law, which bans abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, has particularly angered abortion proponents as it allows “any person” to sue doctors, abortion clinics, or anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.”

Those who sue over an abortion may be awarded $10,000 “for each abortion” the defendant performed, induced, aided, or abetted in violation of the law.

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS came down with a ruling on the Texas "Heartbeat" law that has many in the country up in arms. Here's the breakdown of the law and the SCOTUS judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Texas and Montana, pro-life attitudes are winning

Nicole Russell

September 12, 2021

Texas isn’t the only state trying to uphold abortion restrictions. Similar to Texas, Montana has faced legal challenges to several pro-life laws the Legislature recently passed.

This week, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked a district court to dismiss a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood challenging the new restrictions. One of Montana’s new laws bans abortion after 20 weeks' gestation. These and other protections are supposed to take effect on Oct. 1.

Laws like this, and the challenges that seem to follow inevitably, will undoubtedly test controversial cases such as Roe v. Wade but may also ignite a long-overdue battle over federalism.

Despite these challenges, these laws reflect the changing will toward a culture of life and show a desire to aid women with unplanned pregnancies, arming them with knowledge. They should stand.

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Draggingtree

District court judge blocks landmark Texas 'fetal heartbeat' abortion law

Judge rules Texas contrived a 'transparent statutory scheme' to deprive citizens of abortion rights

A district court judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order blocking Texas S.B. 8 abortion law on Wednesday, finding in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice, which had sought the order to block the law from going into effect. 

"A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that," U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman, of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, wrote in a 113-page ruling.

READ THE RULING HERE     :snip: 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/district-court-judge-blocks-texas-abortion-law

Appointed by: Barack Obama,  oh for got he is one of four openly gay federal judges "Jus Sayin" 

 

 
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 1638580122
×
×
  • Create New...