General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking: AG Garland announces DOJ will protect women seeking an abortion in Texas
In a statement, Garland said the department would protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
The announcement from the Justice Department comes days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
...
The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities, Garland said.
He added that the department will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of federal law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/abortion-justice-department-biden-administration-texas/2021/09/06/f9cdc7ba-0f36-11ec-882f-2dd15a067dc4_story.html
malaise
(268,635 posts)RFN!
MiniMe
(21,707 posts)The Post has a paywall. I subscribe to the post as it is my local paper, so I get access with the subscription
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that the Justice Department would protect women seeking an abortion in Texas as the agency explores ways to challenge one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.
In a statement, Garland said the department would protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
The announcement from the Justice Department comes days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
The law also allows anyone to file a lawsuit against any other person who has aided someone in obtaining an abortion, with the potential for a $10,000 payoff.
The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities, Garland said.
634-5789
(4,175 posts)W_HAMILTON
(7,830 posts)For any bounty hunter that seeks to claim their bounties in civil court as the Texas law allows, have the feds go after their ass on criminal charges.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and criticizing the attorney general for using federal law to protect women from violence and intimidation .
As I said, it's clear that some people just want to complain and attack this administration, no matter what they do.
PortTack
(32,688 posts)Captain Zero
(6,777 posts)themselves.
Wait for some toothless texan to file for his $10K and wind up in a federal prison.
C_U_L8R
(44,982 posts)At least the way these republican shits practice it. May they all rot in jail for their attacks on Women and our Constitution.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Some good news at least.
H2O Man
(73,505 posts)Thank you!
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)Law seems to refer to physical intimation. The Texas law does not do that. The initiation is the threat of being sued. There is no violent act. Garland really needs to get on the stick. Im growing less impressed of him by the day.
Response to Dream Girl (Reply #7)
Post removed
TexasTowelie
(111,890 posts)twice in that post. Such is life.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Had you actually read the story, you would have seen that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is not limited to acts of violence. You would also have seen that DOJ's action is not limited to the new Texas law.
But since despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to believe you have a better grasp on the law than Garland, perhaps you can enlighten us on how you propose he "get on the stick." What alternate plan should DOJ follow? Please be sure to cite the supporting statute and case law ...
George II
(67,782 posts)...what he can and cannot do and how far he can push things.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)Texas Law. I was actually hoping Iwas wrong. No, I have not reviewed the statute nor have I seen any case law that has arisen from the federal statute through the years. I am certainly no expert I earned my JD 30+ years ago and other than a brief stint in the Public Defenders office Ive have always been on the corporate side before eventually moving to marketing. I never claimed to have a better grasp on the law than Garland. I know the man is brilliant, but am I the only one frustrated with how slowly theyre moving? They are too scared to hold Trump accountable for his many, many misdeeds. Dot all the I and cross all the ts, if they must but my God those f*ckwads are growing more enboldened by the day. Somebody better get on the stick. They just seem so timid.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Given your acknowledgment that you don't actually know more than Garland does, perhaps next time, you'll refrain from insisting he "get on the stick" as of you're an expert on what he should be doing.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)That is a given. But we need to do more than that. We need to make sure that they can exercise their connotational rights whether there is violence or not. Nobody should be allowed to stop them from making choices about their own body whether there is violence involved or not.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)justice departments toolbox.
A lot of people seem naive about the breadth and depth of the justice department and its resources.
President Biden has mobilized the executive branch to respond to the injustice in Texas.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)"Do something! Do something"
Something
"Not good enough. Do something else!"
What?
"We don't know. But not the something you're doing!"
Politicub
(12,165 posts)What thing?
Omg why ArE yOU AskIng mE? Im nOt An ExpErt. ThEy shOULd bE dOIng thE thIng..
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)abortion clinics being under attack. It is about legitimizing vigilante anti abortion lunatics, and it is about eliminating women's access to abortions after a date 6 weeks after their last period. (All the articles get this point wrong. It is not 6 weeks into a pregnancy. It is 6 weeks after the last period. Which essentially means women just aren't able to get abortions at all.)
The remedy proposed is not a remedy for the worst provisions of this law. And the article details the fact that the response to those worst provisions is that we are looking into maybe doing something sometime if we can. That really is not good enough.
And to those arguing that it is unreasonable to complain about a lack of government response so soon after the law passed, this law has been in the works for months. There should have been a response queued up and ready to go. There are women who are pregnant now and can't wait for us to get our acts together.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Those of you complaining that warning that DOJ will prosecute violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because you don't think it will stop people from bringing lawsuits under the new state law are completely missing the point.
As I said in another thread, there can be no doubt the new law will embolden vigilantes to take matters into their own hands - it will have ramifications far beyond simply filing lawsuits. It is very likely that intimidation and violence against women and medical providers will ramp up as a direct result of the new law. It's also very likely that state and local authorities will look the other way or wrist slap the perpetrators of these crimes.
Garland has put everyone on notice that DOJ will make it a top priority to prosecute anyone who uses violence or intimidation to interfere with women's ability to obtain abortions.
This is not a small thing.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)In fact, the only people I see claiming the AG's announcement is directed to the law are those who are attacking him because they don't seem to understand what the announcement actually was.
Garland didn't say enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act will directly address the new Texas state law. But, as I said, it certainly is one way to deal with the law's fallout.
And I have no doubt that had Garland not made it a DOJ priority to enforce that federal law in order to protect women seeking abortions from intimidation and violence, when such intimidation and violence ensue in the wake of the new state law, people would attack him for not foreseeing that as a consequence of the new law and not being prepared to do something about it.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)law, to great fanfare, that he will enforce an existing law.
Forgive me for not being excited.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And DOJ's activities are limited to enforcing laws - so expecting them to do more doesn't work a lot of sense.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)posts disgusting and ill-informed, to say the least.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15831004
ismnotwasm
(41,955 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,529 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,529 posts)Bravado to be tough. He just seems meek. I want a stalwart, take no prisoners, feminist on the job. I'll wait though. I am going to give him a little bit more of a chance before I entirely lose faith.
kairos12
(12,841 posts)calimary
(81,085 posts)I was in the mood for a firebrand! And I thought we needed one after the nightmare years of trump. I would have liked to see Garland having spoken up last Thursday evening. But, like you, I'll wait 'n' see, too.
sheshe2
(83,623 posts)Pretty quick work by AG Garland. As the article states this is just the beginning as the agency explores ways to challenge the restrictive law.
Hmm. Thanks for this. Funny only yesterday I was reading that Garland should be fired for not doing anything.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Funny how people insist Garland use every tool at DOJ's disposal to fight this law, and then when he does, they yell (from the sidelines, of course) "WRONG TOOL WRONG TOOL!!!"
Still waiting for these folks to cite exactly which federal laws they think DOJ should use to deal with the Texas law.
calimary
(81,085 posts)an issue or something they don't like. They are BRILLIANT at maneuvering around it to get THEIR way ANYWAY. They'll stop at NOTHING. While our side is wringing its hands about how to never color outside the lines.
If I didn't STRONGLY, even ARDENTLY dislike and oppose everything they stand for, I could see myself gravitating toward a party that thinks that deviously and doesn't hesitate to act on it. They're unfortunately good at getting bad things done, while our Dems are, just as unfortunately, bad at getting good things done.
I've been saying for awhile now that I wish there were more devious thinkers in OUR party. The GOP has almost too many of 'em. And look what they've been able to accomplish - or all that they've effectively and successfully been able to obstruct.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Thanks for sharing.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)That the GOP think tanks that write most of their legislation Heritage, Cato etc. run circles around Dems in thinking up creatives ways around the Constitution its amendments and established law. Dems have been extremely underpowered for a longtime now and they never seem to close the gap. Probably because they are not willing to throw character, soul, family out the window to achieve that. Which is why the GOP wins most of the time.
Except when they have gone too far and it wakes up enough of the citizenry to vote. But the GOP is putting and end to that as well.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,563 posts)What a succinct way of describing the nation's political paradigm.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)do anything to help those affected by the Texas law.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's it.
Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)This means nothing
The law targets anyone who AIDS and abets an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Since you seem to be certain that they're using the wrong one, It shouldn't be difficult for you to cite the federal authority they should be using.
And if you think women who seek or who have had abortions in Texas "aren't in danger and don't need protection," well ... That explains a lot
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Garland has known this was coming for months. Literally. And they have no better response?
And don't fucking play cute with gotchas. Nobody wants women in jeopardy and it's insulting to insinuate any DUer doesn't recognize the risks to pregnant women atm.
My post however was dealing with those outside of the clinic staff, who help a woman get an abortion after 6 weeks and their legal and financial jeopardy now which Merrick Garland does not address.
I am fully supportive of Biden/Harris and can still be critical that DOJ appears unprepared
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And no, lawyers saying they're exploring the options is not bullshit. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. And it's something they cannot fully do until the actual law is passed. Moreover, because there's very little DOJ can do proactively in this situation. They must wait until action is taken under the new law - and they are preparing for all manner of eventualities so they can respond when it is.
This is not an episode of Law & Order where everything is scripted, cut and dried and wrapped up in 48 minutes. And unless you can come up with some specific action they should take right now (and DO something! isn't a thing ...), your criticisms of Garland and DOJ, however well-intentioned, continue to ring hollow.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)That DOJ can't articulate a response and is still working out how to challenge this, when they've known for months that it was coming, definitely opens them up to critique.
But sure, continue to excoriate any who dare question this approach.
I'm not interested in confrontational conversations here on DU. Respectful dialogue is preferred so I'll leave you to have the last word
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And since you believe that there is such a response that should be articulated, what do you think that response should be today?
What exactly should DOJ announce that it's going to do, under what federal statute would they be able to act? And please lay out the facts pursuant to which they will be able to apply the federal statute or statutes you vote.
You may have some difficulty answering that question and for good reason. Many laws, including this one, don't "become fact" until someone takes action pursuant to them. And until that action is taken, a response cannot be launched. Because which federal statute applies - or whether any federal statute applies - depends solely on the particular facts and parties involved.
Because there are myriad possibilities that would lead to many different facts that would need to be addressed under different federal authorities, it's not only extraordinarily difficult but would be egregiously irresponsible for DOJ to preemptively announce what specific action they plan to take other than to say they are exploring all of the possibilities.
calimary
(81,085 posts)They WILL get to that, too. Sooner or later. The goal is subjugation of women. Ideally, seems to me, they want us out of the boardrooms and back in the kitchens and bedrooms. And we women should get our uppity little selves back to where our place is.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)That he is going to protect Americans from Trump and the other insurrectionist leadership? I haven't heard him speak on this recently.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,957 posts)If you want to bash Garland for not arresting Trump, why not start an OP about that?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)If I'm proven wrong. Ecstatic.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They'll just be pissed that they were proven wrong ... and then they'll find something else to complain about since nothing anyone does will ever be good enough.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)And my post is more from my frustration than any feeling toward the AG. and though this may not have so much to do with him, but I'm thrilled the insurrectionists are getting a dose of reality in court rooms.
And back to the topic at hand, I am pleased that we have an AG on the side of women and who is taking this outrage seriously. I am rooting for him.
ejbr
(5,856 posts)With not trusting his mettle to protect anything.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)looking for every excuse possible to trash the Attorney General and President Biden (directly and indirectly) for not taking actions they can't even articulate (Besides "get TOUGH!" DO Something! Play HARDBALL! Lock 'em up NOW!!!" .
ejbr
(5,856 posts)based on the musings of a respected federal prosecutor, not some rando on the internet who thinks they're more knowledgeable than someone extremely familiar with evidence and bringing a case before a Federal Judge. How silly of me.
There is a federal prosecutor bashing his boss. Cool story.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)AZSkiffyGeek
(10,957 posts)Because apparently feds aren't subject to state laws?
ejbr
(5,856 posts)No one working for Teump has no standing to criticize him? Wow
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,957 posts)Remind me again...
ejbr
(5,856 posts)I took us down an unnecessary path as his critic is retired and I concur an active federal prosecutor should never critique strategy of AG. Nonetheless, I'm impatient. I have no qualms with Garland, I'm just impatient.
Cetacea
(7,367 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The overuse of logical fallacies seem popular this particular holiday
I am not only comparing apples and oranges, but also realize an active federal prosecutor should not critique the AG. My bad.
Response to ejbr (Reply #21)
ARPad95 This message was self-deleted by its author.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)AZSkiffyGeek
(10,957 posts)ARPad95
(1,671 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Evolve Dammit
(16,689 posts)Goodheart
(5,307 posts)This doesn't in any way seem an actual legal, consequential, active counter to the Texas law.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Include in your response the federal laws and authorities that support the mediate action you propose.
Goodheart
(5,307 posts)Perhaps upon the first arrest of or suit against a Texan take that state to court for violations of a person's constitutional civil rights?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)So why frame your reaction to what they're doing now as a criticism "not an actual legal, consequential, active counter to the Texas law"?
Goodheart
(5,307 posts)I'm not opposed to the announcement of this enforcement. I just don't think it does much.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Is that this announcement is not just about protecting women from the specific provisions of the new Texas law. DOJ surely knows - as we all should know - that this new law signaled that women in Texas are fair game and are in danger of violence and intimidation, not necessarily stemming from direct enforcement of the new law. The fact that the new law is supposedly aimed at people who help women seeking abortions and not the women themselves is beside the point The women ARE the target and the point is to prevent them from obtaining abortions and having autonomy over their own bodies. That now-state-sanctioned goal will be pursued through many means, not just civil lawsuits.
Texas has declared open season on women and Garland and DOJ are getting out in front and warning the state and its inhabitants that DOJ will fully enforce federal law to protect women from abortion-related violence. If he had not said anything and violence against women and abortion providers ensued, Garland would have been attacked for not getting in front of the issue.
The point of this announcement is to try to DETER and PREVENT violence, not just to prosecute it after it was committed - since every prosecution represents a harm already inflicted.
Goodheart
(5,307 posts)PortTack
(32,688 posts)Just because our DOJ is not slamming his fist on the podium does not mean hes not wielding a VERY big stick!!
Elessar Zappa
(13,892 posts)UTUSN
(70,639 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Talk is cheap - its time for the DOJ under Garland to actually DO things to protect all our rights - starting with Choice and followed quickly by Voting rights.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Im listening.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)That looked like a bold progressive step back to the middle. Do you have any ideas or are you happy to read yet another strongly worded memo while Trumpers put the constitution in the shredder?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Im not going to engage in a turtles all the way down to constitution in the shredder discussion.
AG Garland is working within the law in an airtight manner. It may seem methodical, because thats the way in which the justice department goes about its work.
There are so many legal fights on many fronts right now. AG Garland needs our support as the Democratic Party rises to meet them. Liberal grassroots organizations are strong, and theyre part of this fight, too. Marches and demonstrations are popping up, and a national Womens March is in the works. There are lots of ways to get involved.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Please be specific.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Im no expert but it seems we hired a guy who is suppose to do more than wag his finger at these Trumpers. Im waiting.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)that they're not doing.
Be precise. Explain exactly what that action would be and cite the specific legal authority under which that action would ensue.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Answer my question - are you satisfied with strongly worded memos? If yes, were done here.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But your refusal to offer any alternative has answered my question.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Hekate
(90,515 posts)andym
(5,442 posts)and force women to either not get an abortion because there is no such procedure available or leave the state. Will the DOJ protect abortion clinics and doctors in TX from lawsuits? Will be interesting to see what the DOJ does.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)this action isn't limited to the Texas law but a broader salvo across the bow at Texas.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)Nothing but a scare tactic. There will never be even one case filed. The first case filed will be blasted from all angles by progressive lawyers. Medical records protections, federal civil rights, cross suits for mental anguish, etc.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Garland is warning them about going after women in other ways, as well.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)Blocking clinics, harassing, etc.
LetMyPeopleVote
(144,870 posts)Zeitghost
(3,843 posts)All he's saying is that he will enforce laws already on the books. I appreciate the message, but he can't prevent enforcement of the TX law.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And they have the discretion to step up or scale back enforcement depending on need and resources. Garland has put Texans on notice that they're going to go full bore at them on this.
And DOJ never claimed it would "prevent enforcement of the TX law."
The responses in this thread are fascinating. On the one hand, people demand that DOJ DO something. And when they do something, some of those same people dismiss it.
It's clear that some folk just want to complain and really aren't interested in solutions.
Zeitghost
(3,843 posts)Some seem to be taking this as the DOJ is going to step in and put a stop to this, they won't because they can't. And it's not their fault, it's the way the system works.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)If they ever bring even one case, the DOJ must step forward and immediately file civil rights violations to protect the women. An abortion up until viability is the law of the land.
There needs to be a test case as soon as possible. Force their hand, force them to file a case.
Zeitghost
(3,843 posts)"An abortion up until viability is the law of the land."
The problem is that it's not at the federal level or in TX.
Captain Zero
(6,777 posts)Obviously he would have a plan for that fool.
Cha
(296,726 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,313 posts)spanone
(135,774 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,024 posts)This is just inhumane, un-American, mean-spirited. It's a frontier, vigilante mindset. If allowed to stand it could become a model for other issues that divide us into the oppressed, the hated, the goody-two shoes. It's a friendly form of Nazism in my view because they were all about legalized plunder as well.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,031 posts)To file a lawsuit? Is that a new thing in our system? Like has that happened before?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)He's saying that the Justice Department will crack down hard on anyone violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a crime to use violence or intimidation to prevent a woman from having an abortion. He didn't say that DOJ would prosecute anyone for bringing a civil suit under the new Texas law.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But if you think it won't, what is your suggestion for action that WILL do a lot?
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)far beyond simply filing lawsuits. It is very likely that intimidation and violence against women and medical providers will ramp up as a direct result of the new law. It's also very likely that state and local authorities will go look the other way or wrist slap the perpetrators of these crimes.
Garland has put everyone on notice that DOJ will make it a top priority to prosecute anyone who uses violence or intimidation to interfere with women's ability to obtain abortions.
This is not a small thing.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Prosecutors have wide discretion of what to prosecute and must pick and choose what cases to step in on. Given the limited resources of the federal government, when DOJ announces it's making a priority to prosecute certain cases that haven't been a priority in the past, that's a BFD.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It does, however, address the anticipated fallout of the law.