https://www.ianwelsh.net/texass-effective-anti-abortion-law/
Texas’s Effective Anti-Abortion Law
By Ian Welsh On September 2, 2021
No abortions after six weeks, any private citizen can sue anyone who “aids and abets” a private abortion, and while there is a medical exception, no exception for rape or incest.
continued
https://www.ianwelsh.net/texass-effective-anti-abortion-law/#comments
This is beyond fucked.
I'm curious to know how far the jurisdictional reach of this law extends. Can someone from another state be sued if they provide information to a pregnant Texan about how to get an abortion out-of-state? Could someone from Canada be sued if they arranged and paid for someone's travel to obtain an abortion? If the law doesn't have any reach beyond Texas, until the law is repealed, it seems like folks from other jurisdictions should be stepping up to provide mutual aid to ensure that folks who need an abortion can still get one.
Have the Taliban conquered Texas too?
It's a clever law, but ultimately I believe it will be struck down. Not because of abortion, but because the precedent it would set to, in effect, farm out state enforcement of laws to private individuals, is not one the courts will want to sanction.
I think over the next year or so Trump's Supreme Court justices are going to repeal the 1972 Roe versus Wade decision. When that happens abortion rights in the US will be decided at the state level. Each state will be able to do what it wants so bat shit crazy Republican states like Texas will be able to make crazy abortion laws. We're going to see once again why Republicans are so much worse than Democrats. Don't forget this next time someone says the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
I think over the next year or so Trump's Supreme Court justices are going to repeal the 1972 Roe versus Wade decision. When that happens abortion rights in the US will be decided at the state level. Each state will be able to do what it wants so bat shit crazy Republican states like Texas will be able to make crazy abortion laws. We're going to see once again why Republicans are so much worse than Democrats. Don't forget this next time someone says the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
as with trumpism in general, democrats prepare the ground.
ian welsh has actually written a lot on this in the past. he correctly called the conditions for trump, and the win, years before they happened.
the factory-shuttering job-loss policies of free trade, clinton and "deplorables", the stacking of even their own party's internal elections, their stiffling of single payer, the overall vacuous smug id pol bullshit; that creates the conditions for a "great man on horseback to ride in and save the day". and stack the court.
Funny how we are too happy to allow the authorities to abort our lives with their government injections but sad when we're prevented from aborting the lives of a fetus. Our bodies, our choice? Seems the Coronazis disagree.
Nice false equivalency.
What's not to understand that the Covid19 pandemic is a planetwide contagious medical emergency? By not getting vaccinated you are endangering yourself as well as the rest of us. If you don't care enough about yourself, how about caring for those around, and close to you, and the rest of us as well, you selfish idiot.
Funny how we are too happy to allow the authorities to abort our lives with their government injections but sad when we're prevented from aborting the lives of a fetus. Our bodies, our choice? Seems the Coronazis disagree.
Ah, where to start on the list of logical fallacies. Yeahno. No comparing women's reproductive rights to an anti-vaxxer position. No. Nope. Just no.
Funny how we are too happy to allow the authorities to abort our lives with their government injections but sad when we're prevented from aborting the lives of a fetus. Our bodies, our choice? Seems the Coronazis disagree.
Sounds like a nice summation of the position held by Texas Republicans and other Republicans like Trump and DeSantis.
I think over the next year or so Trump's Supreme Court justices are going to repeal the 1972 Roe versus Wade decision. When that happens abortion rights in the US will be decided at the state level. Each state will be able to do what it wants so bat shit crazy Republican states like Texas will be able to make crazy abortion laws. We're going to see once again why Republicans are so much worse than Democrats. Don't forget this next time someone says the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
as with trumpism in general, democrats prepare the ground.
ian welsh has actually written a lot on this in the past. he correctly called the conditions for trump, and the win, years before they happened.
the factory-shuttering job-loss policies of free trade, clinton and "deplorables", the stacking of even their own party's internal elections, their stiffling of single payer, the overall vacuous smug id pol bullshit; that creates the conditions for a "great man on horseback to ride in and save the day". and stack the court.
For over a century Republicans are always appointing right wing idiots to the Supreme Court and being anti-choice on abortion no matter what the Democrats are doing or not doing. Blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans do makes no sense.
For over a century Republicans are always appointing right wing idiots to the Supreme Court and being anti-choice on abortion no matter what the Democrats are doing or not doing. Blaming the Democrats for what the Republicans do makes no sense.
Both sides of the duopoly are equally to blame, for the evils that this corrupt system has produced.
Not "over a century". Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and Republicans didn't pick up the issue of appointing anti-abortion judges until the Reagan administration.
Both sides of the duopoly are equally to blame, for the evils that this corrupt system has produced.
What Americans are part of the duopoly and what Americans are not part of the duopoly?
Not "over a century". Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and Republicans didn't pick up the issue of appointing anti-abortion judges until the Reagan administration.
It seems to me that before Roe versus Wade Republicans were appointing right-wing judges and anti-choice.
Both sides of the duopoly are equally to blame, for the evils that this corrupt system has produced.
What Americans are part of the duopoly and what Americans are not part of the duopoly?
all the ruling/power/buisness/political/war/insider/elite/+hangers-on class is part of the duopoly.
all us smucks are not.
although we usefully spin our wheels pretending we are. repub/dem, lib/con, coke/pepsi, steelers/nicks.
edit* gender, settler/immigrant, language, etc etc
sure, there can be tangible differences on the ground - for certain groups - on certain issues - and that's not to be discounted. it's also not the whole picture.
sure, the dems are pro-choice, great. but they'll gladly see kids and their parents being evicted onto the streets. _now_ thanks, biden. thanks, squad. how's the vacation goin?
the "duopoly" at work;
Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart
What if members of Congress were seated not by party but according to their major business sponsors? We gave it a try.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/congress-corporate-sponsors/
-
https://cdn.howmuch.net/articles/fortune5-4074.png
-
feminisim is certainly a major lense to understanding what is happening with this court case. the case is also intertwined with and telling of more complex dynamics.
jimmy dore on the dem's utter complicity in the texas abortion law. and for trump!
somewhat obscurely titled,
"Dems Still Blaming Susan Sarandon For Current Failures!"
-
... the dem's utter complicity in the texas abortion law.
The Democrats support Roe versus Wade.
jimmy dore on the dem's utter complicity in the texas abortion law. and for trump!
somewhat obscurely titled,
"Dems Still Blaming Susan Sarandon For Current Failures!"
-
Utter complicity? That's totally idiotic.
... the dem's utter complicity in the texas abortion law.
The Democrats support Roe versus Wade.
well bless their little blue hearts.
note: this thread is about the texas abortion law.
Utter complicity? That's totally idiotic.
deep, very deep.
-
anyone have thoughts on why repressive movements always go after women? simply a weak target (and why?), or is there a specific reservoir of human/societal power there, that they seek to diminish?
... the dem's utter complicity in the texas abortion law.
The Democrats support Roe versus Wade.
well bless their little blue hearts.
note: this thread is about the texas abortion law.
note: abortion law in Texas and the rest of the US still has to adhere to the Roe v Wade decision.
note: abortion law in Texas and the rest of the US still has to adhere to the Roe v Wade decision.
But if the courts allow states to disregard or circumvent Roe, then whether or not they "have to" becomes rather academic.
note: abortion law in Texas and the rest of the US still has to adhere to the Roe v Wade decision.
But if the courts allow states to disregard or circumvent Roe, then whether or not they "have to" becomes rather academic.
The State of Mississippi is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. That decision may cause a real sea change in abortion law in the US. I think there will be a huge backlash in the US if states can start circumnavigating Roe v Wade. I think with the current makeup of the Supreme Courts, odds are Roe v Wade will be circumvented or abolished and abortion rights will become a patchwork of rights in the US depending on what states people live in. That in turn will create greater political upheaval between blue and red Americans.
note: abortion law in Texas and the rest of the US still has to adhere to the Roe v Wade decision.
But if the courts allow states to disregard or circumvent Roe, then whether or not they "have to" becomes rather academic.
The State of Mississippi is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. That decision may cause a real sea change in abortion law in the US. I think there will be a huge backlash in the US if states can start circumnavigating Roe v Wade. I think with the current makeup of the Supreme Courts, odds are Roe v Wade will be circumvented or abolished and abortion rights will become a patchwork of rights in the US depending on what states people live in.
< That in turn will create greater political upheaval between blue and red Americans. >
bingo. you've summed things up nicely.
fear of the other! better fundraising! folks fightin' each other instead of the duopoly!
it's a feature, not a bug.
Its like the US is running with scissors in their hands, don't trip. The next civil war is going to be very destructive if they keep heading down this path.
bingo. you've summed things up nicely.
fear of the other! better fundraising! folks fightin' each other instead of the duopoly!
it's a feature, not a bug.
"Red" America truly believes abortion should be illegal while "blue" America honestly believes it should be legal. They are not clandestinely viewing abortion as an opportunity to work in cahoots together to support a "duopoly." There ate no evil masterminds of the "duopoly" thinking "we will use abortion to help us rule America." The issue of abortion rights in the US isn't a trick. The concept of "duopoly" can be too reductionist.
There ate no evil masterminds of the "duopoly" thinking "we will use abortion to help us rule America." The issue of abortion rights in the US isn't a trick.
It is not a trick, I think a better term is wedge issue. Not all anti-choice people are Republican and not all Republicans are anti-choice.
Margaret Kimberley: Abortion & Phony Politics
https://www.blackagendareport.com/democrats-abortion-and-phony-politics
"...Of course acting to protect abortion rights would make the Democrats more friends than enemies. They would energize millions of people and would be assured victories in most of the country.
But the last thing they want is an energized group of voters. They thrive on trickery and keeping a seat at the table of permanent government. They can then cut deals with their bosses in the oligarchy while millions of people believe they are being represented. Only the rubes are really fighting over abortion."
It is not a trick, I think a better term is wedge issue. Not all anti-choice people are Republican and not all Republicans are anti-choice.
Just because an issue can be used as a wedge issue does not mean that it is not an important issue. "Opposing the duopoly" is also a common wedge issue that is nonetheless an issue that should be addressed.
Only the rubes are really fighting over abortion."
It sounds like supporting choice is beneath you.
You should direct that comment to Margaret Kimberley, the author of the article NDPP quoted. Here's some context for her comment. She is saying supporting choice is beneath the Democratic party:
"Even worse, the Democrats lie about their ability to protect abortion rights. They could pass the Women’s Health Protection Act which would make Roe v. Wade federal law and do away with all abortion restrictions across the country. They could have done this when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had democratic control of both houses of congress and they can still do it now. Democrats have been lying about their ability to protect abortion rights for the past 30 years.
The Democrats constantly treat their members as suckers. They raise millions of dollars claiming that they will stop the Republican onslaught against abortions or some other issue that is important to their voters.. The Women’s Health Protection Act could be passed now but any expectation of that happening is for the suckers to believe. The Democrats claim that it would be too hard to pass because of the filibuster, which they also do nothing about. Round and round they go, with nothing to show except excuses for their inaction. "
Only to you, Sport. Read the damn article.
"Even worse, the Democrats lie about their ability to protect abortion rights. They could pass the Women’s Health Protection Act which would make Roe v. Wade federal law and do away with all abortion restrictions across the country.
If the Republicans get their way the Republican appointed Supreme Court will decide that US states have the right to establish their own abortion laws without having to comply with federal legislation.
The US isn't Canada. Federal law is supreme. It's been debated and decided explicitly. A Supreme Court that suddenly decided states could nullify federal law would be so rogue a court as to be throwing out constitutional law in its entirety. That'd be the effective end of the United States.
The US Supreme Court is a federal court. The Republicans are counting on the federal US Supreme Court that has a majority of Republican appointed judges to end Roe v Wade and allow the states to make their own laws.
Which would not exempt them from federal legislation protecting abortion, were the Democrats to pass it, which they will not.
The Democrats don't have enough votes in the Senate to pass legislation protecting abortion.
bingo. you've summed things up nicely.
fear of the other! better fundraising! folks fightin' each other instead of the duopoly!
it's a feature, not a bug.
"Red" America truly believes abortion should be illegal while "blue" America honestly believes it should be legal. They are not clandestinely viewing abortion as an opportunity to work in cahoots together to support a "duopoly." There ate no evil masterminds of the "duopoly" thinking "we will use abortion to help us rule America." The issue of abortion rights in the US isn't a trick. The concept of "duopoly" can be too reductionist.
But it's so much easier than attempts at nuance.
Which would not exempt them from federal legislation protecting abortion, were the Democrats to pass it, which they will not.
And you know this how?
You should direct that comment to Margaret Kimberley, the author of the article NDPP quoted. Here's some context for her comment. She is saying supporting choice is beneath the Democratic party:
"Even worse, the Democrats lie about their ability to protect abortion rights. They could pass the Women’s Health Protection Act which would make Roe v. Wade federal law and do away with all abortion restrictions across the country. They could have done this when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had democratic control of both houses of congress and they can still do it now. Democrats have been lying about their ability to protect abortion rights for the past 30 years.
The Democrats constantly treat their members as suckers. They raise millions of dollars claiming that they will stop the Republican onslaught against abortions or some other issue that is important to their voters.. The Women’s Health Protection Act could be passed now but any expectation of that happening is for the suckers to believe. The Democrats claim that it would be too hard to pass because of the filibuster, which they also do nothing about. Round and round they go, with nothing to show except excuses for their inaction. "
It's not Canada. You can't just whip all Democrats into voting for something. Then there's the filibuster.
The Democrats don't have enough votes in the Senate to pass legislation protecting abortion.
Nor will they, ever. Even if they hold 100 Senate seats, 41 of them will turn out to be conservatives, vital to keep in the coalition so Republicans won't win, but conveniently preventing Democrats from governing as anything other than Republicans.
Full control of three branches of government isn't enough, because of the filibuster, which Democrats keep when in power because it might stop Republicans from appointing right-wing Supreme Court justices. Except that they went ahead and abolished the filibuster for the Supreme Court, but Democrats still want to keep it, because without the filibuster, they might have to implement some of the things they campaigned on. And even when the filibuster can't be used, on reconciliation bills, there's always a Manchin, or a Sinema, or the suddenly inviolable principle of the Senate parliamentarian.
American Democrats are even better at this scam than Canadian Liberals. The Republican Party exists to implement Republican ideology, and the Democratic Party exists to convince progressives there's no alternative to Republican ideology.
You should direct that comment to Margaret Kimberley, the author of the article NDPP quoted. Here's some context for her comment. She is saying supporting choice is beneath the Democratic party:
"Even worse, the Democrats lie about their ability to protect abortion rights. They could pass the Women’s Health Protection Act which would make Roe v. Wade federal law and do away with all abortion restrictions across the country. They could have done this when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had democratic control of both houses of congress and they can still do it now. Democrats have been lying about their ability to protect abortion rights for the past 30 years.
The Democrats constantly treat their members as suckers. They raise millions of dollars claiming that they will stop the Republican onslaught against abortions or some other issue that is important to their voters.. The Women’s Health Protection Act could be passed now but any expectation of that happening is for the suckers to believe. The Democrats claim that it would be too hard to pass because of the filibuster, which they also do nothing about. Round and round they go, with nothing to show except excuses for their inaction. "
It's not Canada. You can't just whip all Democrats into voting for something. Then there's the filibuster.
But there is this...The Democrats have abandoned most of the progressive policies they held before 1980(the Democratic incumbent who lost badly to Reagan that year, Jimmy Carter was and is a decent man, was at that time the most conservative Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson, or even possibly Grover Cleveland, but for some reason they're convinced that they lost to Reagan for being "too far left"), so abortion, throughout that time, has been essentially the only policy they consistently offer that could be seen as progressive.
Biden, to his credit, has done somewhat more progressive things and pushed somewhat more progressive domestic policies during his presidency- not that much more progressive, but a bit- so he is a mild exception to that trend.
In order to hold progressive votes with defense of reproductive choice being essentially their only progressive policy since 1980, Democrats have to keep the issue unresolved. If they pass actual federal legal protections to guarantee abortion rights once and for all, they lose, essentially, their only leverage on progressive voters and activists. In races below the presidency, the loss of that leverage could result in huge numbers of independent progressives, independent Left or Green(in the "fundi" sense) candidates being elected to state legislatures, Congress, and state houses.
So, if they are to survive on any level below presidential politics, Democrats actually CAN'T just pass a federal protecting choice once and for all- just as the Liberals can't pass actually progressive legislation like Pharmacare and universal dental care in Canada- because they would be giving up the store.
They survive by feeding on the crisis, and to feed on it, they have to keep it going.
American Democrats are even better at this scam than Canadian Liberals. The Republican Party exists to implement Republican ideology, and the Democratic Party exists to convince progressives there's no alternative to Republican ideology.
Our current election is an example of the principal being implemented on this side of the border. We also get to have Obama and other US politicians directly trying to persuade Canadians to vote Liberal and the Liberal's trying to brand O'Toole as Trumpian. The PPC has provided him a deflection from that narrative by actually acting like asshole Trump supporters.
Unlike the Republicans the Conservatives are not running on an anti-choice platform. They could easily be running on the criminalization of abortion in Canada if they wanted to be alt right. We have no laws in Canada against abortion because no party, even the Conservatives, have the support of the majority of the people to go anywhere near the issue. If a Canadian government wanted to pass the same laws in Canada they could.
In Canada tort law is provincial so Alberta or PEI could pass similar legislation to allow for people to be sued for their role in the provision of health care for women. The problem in Canada is that it would require the courts recognition of the rights of someone in precedence to the mother-to-be. To get over that hurdle the Not Withstanding Clause is the ticket.
In Canada no party would do that, not even in places that restrict access to abortions severely, like PEI. In Texas the people passing these hateful misogynist laws seem to be governing with the will of the people.
More Texans identify as pro-choice than pro-life, though it's a narrow margin. The political culture of Texas is more complicated than it seems.
The political culture in Texas obviously supports to a great extent patriarchy, social and economic hierarchy, sexism, racism, etc... To a great but lesser extent overall US political culture supports all that too. If Roe v Wade is overridden the Democrats could still pass legislation protecting pro-choice rights by abolishing the filibuster in the Senate. However, if the filibuster is abolished in the Senate nothing will stop Republicans from enacting anti-choice legislation with just a simple majority. So if Roe v Wade is taken out and the filibuster removed abortion rights could well become an ongoing battle in US elections further pushing the US into basket case territory. The filibuster rule is an anti-democratic measure that should have been abolished a long time ago.
The Republican Party exists to implement Republican ideology, and the Democratic Party exists to convince progressives there's no alternative to Republican ideology.
How can Americans get out of this Kafkaesque situation?
Couldn't it be also said that the NDP's role is to maintain the status quo in Canada? And couldn't it be said that everything that is a part of the status quo plays a role in maintaining the status quo? Isn't there a fallacy here?
There's room for nuanced debate, of course. I'm not one of those who thinks electoral politics is pointless. The Democratic Party brought the US all of its existing social programs, even at a time when it had a substantial white supremacist wing. It's only really in the last few decades that Ronald Reagan went from someone too far right to stand a chance in hell of being elected to the standard-bearer of the left border of American politics.
The US needs both real street mobilization and a new party (the People's Party – no relation - is one to watch). As for Canada, the NDP is currently dominated by its right wing. It doesn't have to be. It's moved left from Mulcair, certainly. There are those who have given up and decided that the Greens, or the Ecosocialists in BC, or even the Bloc are more useful vehicles. Those are legitimate tactical positions to take, even if I still feel like the NDP has better potential. Ceding the electoral battleground to the right wing at a time of imminent climate apocalypse is poor strategy.
Dems stalled abortion protections in a committee
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1436156226665074689
"Democrats promised legislation to codify Roe and preempt the Texas law, but they've chosen to leave it sitting with a congressional panel.
Democrats in Washington control Congres and the White House, two branches of government that have the power to preempt not only the Texas law, but also stop any copycat anti-abortion laws that other Republican states now race to pass.
This is something Democratic lawmakers can do today - this very minute - to protect women's health. And if they once again opt to cite filibuster rules they have the power to change or if they manufacture some other false reason for inaction - then they are willfully choosing to take the side of the anti-abortion extremists..."
Ceding the electoral battleground to the right wing at a time of imminent climate apocalypse is poor strategy.
I think the best strategy for the left is to appeal to as many people as possible who are open to left of centre ideas. In the US this means creating coalitions from those who currently support Democrats, Independents, and the very few Republicans who are open to left of centre solutions. In Canada it means creating coalitions and supporting cooperation between those who vote NDP, Liberal, Green, and BQ, and the few who vote Conservative who are open to left of centre solutions. I think concentrating on blaming those you disagree with just fractures and weakens the left. I think finding common ground is essential.
