• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect

Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
31,346
Reaction score
19,891
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Great News! Too bad the ban doesn't take effect in the first minute, but this is a great victory for innocent lives in the womb!

And the great part about the law, is that if any abortion clinic violates the law there are now real consequences.

Now more states will follow suit. Roe V Wade will be effectively MOOT as now abortion laws will be back in the hands of the states. And the good states like Texas will get it right.
 
Court Jester said:
Great News! Too bad the ban doesn't take effect in the first minute, but this is a great victory for innocent lives in the womb!
Click to expand...
As if any one on the pro-birth side gives a **** about "innocent lives in the womb."
 
Dragonfly said:
Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect Overnight - https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033171800/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-

Here we go.

I thought this was unconstitutional? I thought the SCOTUS would step in and prevent this?

I wouldn’t be heartbroken at all if Texas ever decided to secede.

If course this opens the door for the true morons of the south, Mississippi and others, to follow suit.

Idiocy.
Click to expand...
I love it. Good bye Roe vs Wade. The fat lady is warming up.
 
www.cnn.com

Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

A controversial Texas law that bars abortions at six weeks went into effect early Wednesday morning after the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court failed to rule on pending emergency requests brought by abortion providers.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The lack of judicial intervention means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- goes into force absent further court intervention.
Click to expand...

The case comes as the justices are poised in the upcoming term to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bars abortion at 15 weeks.
Click to expand...

Why do they want to rule on one law but not the other? An abortion ban is an abortion ban no matter how old the embryo or fetus is.
 
Texas may be too smart for it’s own good. They’re banking on the fact that since they’re not enforcing the ban but allowing private people to sue the law will not be struck down.

However to sue someone you need to prove you’ve been harmed. Aside from fathers who disagree with the abortion it’s hard to see how some random person is harmed by a woman’s choice to get an abortion. So it’s hard for me to see how virtually anyone could win and by extension how the law can stand.

All the SC did was refuse to delay implementation pending current lawsuits. That’s bad - it sucks - but I have a feeling the law won’t have legs.

In the meantime Texans should vote those assholes out.
 
Court Jester said:
Great News! Too bad the ban doesn't take effect in the first minute, but this is a great victory for innocent lives in the womb!

And the great part about the law, is that if any abortion clinic violates the law there are now real consequences.

Now more states will follow suit. Roe V Wade will be effectively MOOT as now abortion laws will be back in the hands of the states. And the good states like Texas will get it right.
Click to expand...
Except this law violates women's constitutional rights, so it is not great news. Maybe women can vote a law into working that all men should be castrated at age 16 and only with saved sperm are allowed to have children. Or is that against the rights of men?
 
tacomancer said:
Cue 18 years from now when all the conservative start bitching about these hoodlums who weren't raised well and are maladjusted.
Click to expand...

And pro-choicers respond by saying that “hoodlums” should’ve been killed in the womb for the betterment of society?
 
Josie said:
And pro-choicers respond by saying that “hoodlums” should’ve been killed in the womb for the betterment of society?
Click to expand...
Women who are not ready to be mothers should be able to make that choice. If this sort of thing stands, a lot of orphanages are going to have their hands full.

On a personal note, it might be good for me since I am probably going to try to adopt in the next couple of years.
 
Peter King said:
Except this law violates women's constitutional rights, so it is not great news. Maybe women can vote a law into working that all men should be castrated at age 16 and only with saved sperm are allowed to have children. Or is that against the rights of men?
Click to expand...

That’s not a parallel analogy.
 
tacomancer said:
If this kind of legal vigilantism stands, I wonder how long until everyone's pet causes that generate any sort of controversy are targeted.
Click to expand...

Is there a private cause of action to sue a gun shop for selling a gun used in a crime? Always fear the unintended consequence of foolish laws...
 
BlueTex said:
Is there a private cause of action to sue a gun shop for selling a gun used in a crime? Always fear the unintended consequence of foolish laws...
Click to expand...

No need for all that. Make owning a firearm illegal, without a mechanism for State enforcement, and just allow people to sue someone for owning a firearm.
 
Gaius46 said:
Texas may be too smart for it’s own good. They’re banking on the fact that since they’re not enforcing the ban but allowing private people to sue the law will not be struck down.

However to sue someone you need to prove you’ve been harmed. Aside from fathers who disagree with the abortion it’s hard to see how some random person is harmed by a woman’s choice to get an abortion. So it’s hard for me to see how virtually anyone could win and by extension how the law can stand.

All the SC did was refuse to delay implementation pending current lawsuits. That’s bad - it sucks - but I have a feeling the law won’t have legs.

In the meantime Texans should vote those assholes out.
Click to expand...

It's a money thing.

Anti-abortion groups will provide the legal filings and flood abortion clinics with law suits from "individuals" that have to be defended in court. The intent is to bankrupt the clinics.

WW
 
Peter King said:
isn't it? Is it not that this law violates a woman's right to body integrity and making her own medical decisions?
Click to expand...

This isn’t just about the woman’s body. There’s another human involved. There is no parallel analogy to men since only women are able to carry another human.
 
Josie said:
This isn’t just about the woman’s body. There’s another human involved. There is no parallel analogy to men since only women are able to carry another human.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is nonsense, there is just one human being involved, there is just one person with rights and that is the woman. There is no other person involved, just the woman. It is her uterus, her decision and her right.
 
Peter King said:
Yeah that is nonsense, there is just one human being involved, there is just one person with rights and that is the woman. There is no other person involved, just the woman. It is her uterus, her decision and her right.
Click to expand...

No, there are two humans. Only one has rights, yes.
 
Gaius46 said:
Texas may be too smart for it’s own good. They’re banking on the fact that since they’re not enforcing the ban but allowing private people to sue the law will not be struck down.

However to sue someone you need to prove you’ve been harmed. Aside from fathers who disagree with the abortion it’s hard to see how some random person is harmed by a woman’s choice to get an abortion. So it’s hard for me to see how virtually anyone could win and by extension how the law can stand.

All the SC did was refuse to delay implementation pending current lawsuits. That’s bad - it sucks - but I have a feeling the law won’t have legs.

In the meantime Texans should vote those assholes out.
Click to expand...
WorldWatcher said:
It's a money thing.

Anti-abortion groups will provide the legal filings and flood abortion clinics with law suits from "individuals" that have to be defended in court. The intent is to bankrupt the clinics.

WW
Click to expand...


Studies have shown that when clinics close, more women attempt to terminate their pregnancies on their own. When women try to perform abortions without a medical professional, more of them have serious complications .
or die.

Expect more hospitalizations and deaths from illegal or self induced abortions.

Welcome back to the damage and deaths of women that took thousands of women’s life’s before Roe.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Women who are not ready to be mothers should be able to make that choice. If this sort of thing stands, a lot of orphanages are going to have their hands full.

On a personal note, it might be good for me since I am probably going to try to adopt in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Actually, only one percent of women in the US give a newborn up for adoption.

It’s more likely there will be a lot more single mothers who will need more welfare money and will be more likely to ignore and love or even care about their little ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom