U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

I heartily support this judge's latest action. This Texas law is a violation of a woman's right to abortion according to the ruling handed down by Roe v Wade.

In a new case the Mississippi challenge to Roe v Wade will be ruled on soon by the Supreme Court. We all know where the hearts of the conservatives on the court are, but this will test their respect for 50 years of precedent under the principle of stare decisis, and we shall see if this court has the courage to respect stare decisis. Roe v Wade upholds the fundamental right to privacy and bodily autonomy and by that right, uphold a woman's right to an abortion for the first trimester.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...ent-near-total-abortion-ban-texas-2021-10-07/

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a near-total ban on abortion in Texas, the toughest such law in the United States, in a challenge brought by President Joe Biden's administration after the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed it to go into effect.

The action by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues. The case is part of a fierce legal battle over abortion access in the United States, with numerous states pursuing restrictions.

 

I don't. Abortion is murder in a strict sense.

Suppose that someone found out that his mother wanted to abort him, while the Texas law saved his life. How does he feel?

 

It's not "murder". You abuse the term and the English language.

Suppose the surviving spouse of a murdered person learned that the murderer's mother reluctantly decided to not abort him because some RW yahoo badgered her and insulted her and threatened her?

 

good news.

 

Glad to see a Judge rule in favor of the Law.

**** Texas

 

Good news! However I am betting that in the time this “ban” was in effect there was effectively no reduction in the actual abortion rate as women headed out of state.

 

I think that someone who's realized the value of life is against any kind of life destruction. No bad guy was born as the bad guy. They all deserve a clean start.

 

You do lots of "supposing" and "I think"ing. Got any facts?

 

Shrugs same as any other kid who has been adopted out, put in the foster system, abandoned etc.

 

Yeah "pitbull" is wrong. EVERYONE comes into the world with "an agenda". Some are born evil for reasons that can include mental dysfunction.

 

Anecdote doesn't overrule the broader principle, and that is the individual right to privacy and bodily autonomy, a right which, as a penumbra right ( I assumed that's the concept, but no matter...) thus grants this right to a woman for the first trimester, I believe.

But, if you do want anecdote, it goes both ways. My sister almost was killed, back in '65, when she was 15, in a DIY abortion ( and she did not tell our mother). My mother and father were devastated over concern for her safety.

Roe v Wade protects lives, too. Therefore, one cannot claim to be 'pro-life' when without R v W the deaths of women, especially women without means and young women, increase substantially.

 

No, reports are that women that cannot get out of state (as hard as that is to believe in 2021) and have been unable to have an abortion... And I doubt this ruling will open things back up again...

Let's play a game..... Fill in the blank... Iran or Texas??

______ authority mandates pregnant women be reported to prevent 'criminal abortions'

 

I might disagree there

A disproportionate number of FASD children end up in the criminal justice system (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder)

https://www.nofasd.org.au/service-providers/criminal-justice/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22032097/

 

That is a highly subjective view. Why don't you do you, and let others just be?

 

It'll probably be in the 5th Circuit by Friday AM.... But good on Judge Pitman... At least there's one real man in that state (or the SCOTUS for that matter)

 

Worse is when desperation pushes them to back alley abortions

 

One fact is the women who got heavily depressed after the abortion. Their murdered children can't, unfortunately, talk for themselves anymore.

 

Anymore?? They were talking for themselves prior to the abortion?

What were they saying?? "Whatever you do, don't let me be born in this shithole state"?

 

Yeah, my sister almost was killed in '65 in a DIY abortion ( she didn't tell mom & dad ). She was 15. Banning R v W will result in increased deaths in women, especially those without means. This law is pernicious, the judge murdered it in his order. He said it was “an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right.”

Amen to that.

 

Oh, could the fetus talk for itself previous to the abortion? See? You want to be ridiculous? Fine. I can too.

Here's a fact or two for you: Laws against abortion have never stopped abortions. Ever. But they have resulted in dead women who wanted an abortion anyway. So which is more important to you: the fetus that can't feel anything and has no awareness or consciousness, or the woman? ... because that is the actual, factual choice.

 

Aborting women don't let others be. They deny them life. That's unconditionally death penalty for nothing before the suspect was born.

We live in a damn broken world!

 

The argument rises and falls over the 'children' premise.

The court, as I understand it, don't recognise the fetus, especially during the first trimester, as a 'child'.

Not only that, come to think of it, the Bible Doesn't, either. So I'm wondering where this 'fetus is a child' notion comes from?

Either it is or isn't. If it isn't, then your premise is false.

But, it's the fetus and the women's lives, both are at stake.

Without R v W, more women, especially young women and women without means, due to botched DIY and back alley abortions, will die or be seriously injured.

There is no bloodless solution, that is the unfortunate reality, noting that I find abortion as repugnant as many on the right do, but, I do not feel that deprivation of one's right to privacy and bodily autonomy can be superseded by banning abortion, given that bodily autonomy and privacy rights are inclusive of rights to abortion. Now, I understand if R v W is repealed, it won't ban abortion ( unless, of course, that wording is in the ruling ) and it will go to the states. But, at least 26 states will ban it, and thus it will still harm women who lack means in those states, should they perform DIY abortions, or go play Mexican Roulette and get it down there.

 

You just can't deal with the facts that the fetus is just a collection of cells with no feelings, no awareness, and no consciousness, can you? An abortion is the same as a miscarriage, in effect.

 

They probably say "Please give me a chance to become a better person than my mother, who's a drug addict and criminal b*tch"

 

Celebration is premature. The current Texas law was carefully designed by studying past cases against anti-abortion laws. So, now, even if it gets overturned, there's always going to be another one. At least until abortion access is passed into law. Until that time there will always be another abortion ban.