General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs Roe vs Wade overturned nation wide, or just in Texas...Seems to me..just in Texas..Is that right?
Lovie777
(11,992 posts)Stuart G
(38,365 posts)So, each state has its own rules on abortions..? By this ruling?
Marius25
(3,213 posts)But this does allow all the red states who have been trying to quickly pass their own bans, and presumably the Supreme Court isn't going to stop it.
So effectively, the States can now ban abortion.
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)In this case, they played coward, so for now the new law will apply to Texas.
The SC can reverse the law or reverse parts of the Texas law...Or can they can decide that it is constitutional and then the law will stand and then the law is permanent.
BTW before Roe v Wade, abortion was legal in several states...Roe V Wade found that laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional.
At the very least, the tattle-tale thing has got to be unconstitutional...
The SC will not "overturn" Roe vs Wade....(They won't want to overturn something that the SC has previously decided) Instead, they will just allow states to pile on more restrictions..They will find legal justification for those restrictions...
Stuart G
(38,365 posts)So, each state will ...."pile on restrictions".....and, in my opinion, some states will add no restrictions.
elleng
(130,156 posts)IHaveNoName
(91 posts)Eventually, and IMO soon, SCOTUS will reverse Roe v Wade. They have been telegraphing loudly that they have no compunction to overturning what we all thought was settled law.
randr
(12,408 posts)blogslug
(37,955 posts)A trigger law is a nickname for a law that is unenforceable, but may achieve enforceability if a key change in circumstances occurs.
In the United States, ten states Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah (The eleventh trigger law will enter into legal force on 1 November 2021 in Oklahoma) have trigger laws that would automatically ban abortion in the first and second trimesters if the landmark case Roe v. Wade were overturned. Illinois formerly had a trigger law (enacted in 1975), but repealed it in 2017. Also, eight states Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin as well as the already mentioned Arkansas and Mississippi, still have their unenforced pre-Roe abortion bans on the law books. Those laws are not currently enforceable due to Roe, but could be enforced if Roe were overturned.
(Mind you, technically, the Texas law does not outright ban abortion but does severely limit it + it adds some frightening penalties and enables random assholes to report those who assist with access to it.)
dsc
(52,130 posts)and while not literally overturned, it may as well be. I can't see what law they think would need struck down if this one isn't.
spanone
(135,637 posts)CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Setting aside the evil of taking away a womans choice. It will be interesting to see how these states will deal with the welfare explosion that will follow. Of course they will pass the buck on to the federal level which will further put a drain on the blue states that already subsidize these states.
It will also be interesting to see how they freak out about the explosion of black and brown people. Because this law will have a larger effect on minorities. I am terrified to even hazard a guess as to how they will react to that.
haele
(12,581 posts)Basically the same as if you wanted to sue a doctor for malpractice, whether or not s/he did something wrong. Or rather, sue someone for not baking a wedding cake for you because you were of a different religion or of a protected status.
What the legislature did was remove Abortion from a protected civil status if an individual felt your protected religion or personal beliefs were violated because a woman refuse to carry to term after "a heartbeat" might be present.
The state could claim it was just protecting the sincerely held religious rights of the person bringing the suit.
The case against it would be standing to sue and possibly a countersuit due to harassment for a legal, lifesaving medical procedure.
On edit -
One of the premises of Roe was viability. An abortion is a safe medical procedure for an unviable fetus, no matter what the reason for the non-viability status is between the woman and the fetus she is carrying.
That status is protected under HIPPA anyway. No one needs to know why a woman has an abortion procedure.
The question becomes does a layperson have a right to poke his or her nose into someone else's medical condition that does not affect them just because because of religious or political beliefs?
It would be interesting if someone petitioned to sue facilitators of baby circumcision for child abuse under this precedence.
Or civil suits against ranchers, slaughterhouses and restaurants - for sincerely held religious convictions - e.g., Orthodox Judaism (uncleanliness of pig/pork items), Jainism( killing of any living thing).
Haele
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)All that happened is that a law was crafted such that it couldn't be challenged prior to taking effect and creative lawyers couldn't think of a way to get around that. But nobody ruled that the law was constitutional or that Roe is overturned (at ANY level).
Now the law has taken effect and (once someone tries to enforce it) the real challenges can begin.
SweetieD
(1,660 posts)State legislative bodies will pass the same law.