1078
Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1078 points (98.0% liked)
News
23680 readers
3321 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This sounds incredibly illegal? Where the fuck is the law?
Probably blocking the road
Ha
Unfortunately, the legal precedent that protected a woman's right to get an abortion was overturned by the SCOTUS and now we've got a complete mish-mash of state and local laws being created to test the boundaries of what they can do.
It's almost like using precedents instead of just writing the fucking laws unambiguously is an inherently broken concept.
I would say the 14th Amendment is pretty unambiguous on abortion, just as the Commerce Clause is 100% unambiguous on the unconstitutionality of these travel laws. The problem is that it's not specific, which is the opening used by this adversarial SCOTUS.
Even if you had 100 pages listing specifics for a Constitutional Amendment, you'd STILL miss obvious ones. The protection from Cruel and Unusual punishment, for example. It should be more unambiguous by including a list of 100 things the authors considered cruel, 100 things the authors considered unusual, and then a stipulation that they meant "if any of those 200 items is true". And even then, those Constitutional authors didn't write "Keelhauling" in the list, so that must be fine!
But summarizing... You can't have a large over-arcing right that stands the test of time and dishonest lawmakers without it being general and requiring some interpretation. If only we could solve for dishonest SCOTUS justices.
Ultimately, the only check or balance that actually works is the people. No system of laws will protect you from a broken culture. If millions of Americans didn't support this kind of behaviour then the politicians writing these laws would never have won their elections, but since they do, they'll find whatever justification they need to to impose their ideology.
Sure, but I'm replying to the person whose opinion is that laws aren't worded correctly. They're worded fine. There's just bad actors involved.
Without bad actors, you don't need to worry about wording laws more specifically. With bad actors, it doesn't matter if you have a "Abortions cannot be banned" amendment.
I actually don't think Dobbs affected this that much. Texas was trying to circumvent Roe before Dobbs, anyway, not using criminal prosecution but by allowing people to be sued in civil court for abortion.
Sure, and they found lots of subtle ways to make abortions inconvenient and in some cases unavailable. But now that they can make them outright illegal, they're passing laws to criminalize everyone and everything involved.
The ordinance in this Texas case doesn't make anything criminal, it uses the same civil liability workaround that Texas was using at the state level before Dobbs.
Full faith and credit only works in one direction; towards Texas.
The bigots dictate the law now and everyone lets them because no one wants to overthrow those evil local governments, not even legally through elections.