Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, John Roberts and liberals dissenting
Source: CNN
The court's move means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- will remain on the books.
The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
This story is breaking and will be updated
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court-sb8-roe-wade/index.html
This is a formal denial that was just issued.
elleng
(129,800 posts)Kittycatkat
(1,356 posts)PortTack
(32,491 posts)roamer65
(36,738 posts)It was stolen anyway.
alwaysinasnit
(5,035 posts)kimbutgar
(20,764 posts)Now its up to the women in the USA to fight ack.
Stuart G
(38,328 posts)And he will do it..
JohnSJ
(91,807 posts)ZonkerHarris
(24,123 posts)JohnSJ
(91,807 posts)of what happened in 2016
Roberts has been consistent on this. In his confirmation hearing he said very clearly that Roe was the law of the land
If you want to direct your anger at someone then it is trump and the three justices he appointed, and those who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)He seems to be the only justice whose could not be replaced by a robot.
Moebym
(989 posts)because shit like this will be demanding Biden's full attention for the foreseeable future.
Ponietz
(2,893 posts)Thinking about the domestic issues facing us and hoping Biden was clearing the plate DOJ to go after the traitor-in-chief.
JohnSJ
(91,807 posts)burrowowl
(17,593 posts)Burkas for all so-called pro-life women wiling white male taliban ass lickers!
dalton99a
(80,907 posts)Jon King
(1,910 posts)I must be missing what this law says. A women gets an abortion. Someone, like an Uber driver, says they think she was more than 6 weeks pregnant. So they sue the doctor.
Then what? How would a person's medical records be exposed? A perfect stranger can demand a doctor and women provide details on when she conceived and exactly how pregnant she was? Then the civil court somehow decides if it was 5 weeks and or 7 weeks?
I am completely missing how this will be enforced.
maxrandb
(15,154 posts)If you file suit against someone based on this law, if they fail to show up in court to defend themselves, you WIN automatically.
At least that is how I read it. Apparently, you, or the person you accuse don't even need to live in the same county. I guess someone from 2,000 miles away could sue you in their county, and if you don't show for the hearing, they get $10K plus their legal fees.
Oh, and that 10K is the minimum
So, say you're a Texas resident, but you temporarily are working in another state, i guess you could get sued because someone thinks you gave a women at 6.5 weeks a ride to a clinic.
I wonder if any women had miscarriages during the deep freeze in TX this year. Can they sue the energy companies, or all the employees at a power transfer station?
Oh well...ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!!
onenote
(42,296 posts)It could be filed in a county other than the one in which the targeted defendant lives. But I don't think it could be filed in another state.
slightlv
(2,623 posts)And if so, what of the rule of law now? Shouldn't we all just go vigilante?
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)such a lawsuit as which case they can toss it out due to the party having no standing for which to actually file it?
That would kind of slap down any such similar attempts in other states to give parties say in filing a lawsuit for something that is none of their damn business in the first place.
Jon King
(1,910 posts)Thats the entire crux of the law, it gives any private citizen standing.
But I do want to see a case filed for a different reason...to see what the court does in regards to medical records. Will the women remain anonymous? And just her records released to the court without her identity? Can the doctor's defense team claim doctor-patient confidentiality. Can the women protect her records? Can the doctor demand the court to release her identity so he can call her as a defense witness, then when the court refuses, the doctor claim he could not defend his case without her identity being released?
So many hundreds of questions about how this can be enforced.
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)I do know that at this point I would not object in the slightest if SCOTUS was increased by 3 more seats by Biden.
EndlessWire
(6,341 posts)is how someone can sue some person who merely drove the car for an out of state abortion? How is that going to work??
This is crazy. Can we expel Texas? They aren't going to understand the petitions to kick them out. They think that is a big threat, but no, we are tired of the diva behavior. Don't let the border wall hit you in the butt on the way out.
Response to Jon King (Reply #17)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Pas-de-Calais
(9,881 posts)monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)they are trying to copy the Taliban look's like to me ! women are not as smart as men ! boy , abbott started a fire storm now !
Kablooie
(18,547 posts)Which could mean a hundred greedy assholes could get $10,000 from each person involved.
And SCOTUS sees no problem with this.
Response to Kablooie (Reply #26)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kablooie
(18,547 posts)It's to encourage the public to police abortion themselves.
moose65
(3,162 posts)"Standing" has a long established legal definition. Can a state pass a law that changes that?
Could Texas pass a law that says that killing abortion doctors isn't murder?
ripcord
(5,037 posts)The reason behind it is that court challenges are made against the enforcing agency, civilians aren't a part of any enforcing agency.
bucolic_frolic
(42,478 posts)The judiciary now laced with radicals not acting in the interests of stability. Rule of law manages the bureaucracy and when rule of law becomes rule of the day, you haven't got much.
sl8
(13,541 posts)Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Let's be real, the real point of this law is to provide a vehicle that will force the Supreme Court to re-visit Roe & Casey.
The proponents of this law don't give a rat's ass as to whether abortion providers lose these civil lawsuits, the fact is that they won't, as Roe provides an absolute defense for the services that they provide. The point of this law is twofold: one is to bury abortion providers with nuisance lawsuits that they have to bear the cost of defending. Essentially death by a thousand cuts, which is the same strategy that gun reform groups would like to use against firearms manufacturers, bankrupt them through litigation. Winning the lawsuit isn't the point, forcing the defendant to spend a gazillion dollars defending themselves, is.
The second purpose of this law is to force someone who is sued, who uses Roe as their defense, to take the case to the Supreme Court and force them to re-visit Roe. Given the marked change in the make-up of the Court since Roe was originally published, that outcome is certainly in doubt. By forcing litigants to use State Courts instead of Federal Circuit Courts, this law will force the S.C. to take up the case, instead of just allowing a lower court precedent to stand. If Roe is repealed, then this Texas law becomes moot.
Just as Congress passed a law protecting gun makers from civil liability in most cases, it seems like maybe Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Shumer should be taking a long hard look at passing a similar liability protection law for health care providers who offer termination services, prior to the 2022 mid-terms, when they may lose any chance of getting such legislation across the finish line.
hamsterjill
(15,198 posts)She was so sure that Kavanaugh wasnt lying.
Good grief. This is no surprise to anyone. These idiots on the court are crazy ass religious idiots. No better than the members of any other religious cult trying to force its beliefs on the rest of the world. This was their intent from the start and once again, Republicans have gotten their way.
Shermann
(7,313 posts)I don't see why the burden of proof falls on the Texas abortion providers. You had one job to do SCOTUS.
I also don't see how "complex" and "novel" procedural questions preclude the freezing of the state law. Allow a law which directly affects women's health and wellbeing pass now, and figure out what it all means later??