General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan the new TX abortion law be stayed by a lower court as the USSC has
refused to act?
samnsara
(17,570 posts)..its worked before!
rdking647
(5,113 posts)women should just all walk out of their jobs and go on strike
shut this whole shithole state down
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Pretty much their dream for decades.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Obviously the women who oppose abortion aren't going to do it... and what sense would their be in a pro-choice woman rejecting her partner if he too is pro-choice?
All that leaves is the pro choice women who are paired up romantically with anti-choice men. And how many such can there be?
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Women should stop doing something they enjoy to punish men?
2naSalit
(86,061 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)The SCOTUS does not initiate the things it hears on its own. Instead, it reviews decisions made by inferior courts in the system. So, how would it have acted on a law that only just now will take effect?
It is crucial to know how the federal court system functions before making statements about it.
It seems quite likely to me that the Texas law will be blocked, since it allows lawsuits by parties not directly affected by someone's abortion or provision of such an abortion. That flies in the face of our tort system, where only parties adversely affected by some action by another part can sue.
dsc
(52,130 posts)and prevented a lower court from holding a hearing.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Only on a lawsuit trying to ban enforcement by some people who can't enforce the law.
Now that the law is in place - a lawsuit against people who actually try to enforce it should have more success.
leftieNanner
(14,998 posts)And they refused to hear the case. That's why it was rushed to SCOTUS.
The Circuit court said it did not have jurisdiction because the law doesn't say that it's the State of Texas that is enforcing the ban - it's private vigilante citizens who can sue any person involved in an abortion beyond 6 weeks.
This is the end-around to destroy Roe.
I hope you are right MM!
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,814 posts)Then there will be jurisdiction. I expect the first of those lawsuits to be filed today, and (hopefully) some big-pocket pro-choice organization is ready to challenge it.
leftieNanner
(14,998 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Someone has to actually perform an abortion covered by the act and then someone else has to try to enforce the law by suing them.
AZSkiffyGeek
(10,814 posts)A judge in Texas issued an injunction stopping them. I just expect someone has an ace up their sleeve to sue.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Then someone would have to try to enforce the law through the civil court process.
There's no telling how long that will take. Fortunately... either side can appeal a civil court decision. So we don't have to wait to lose one before heading to a higher court.
JohnSJ
(91,965 posts)effect, and they didnt put a stay until it is ruled on, they have to still rule
They have not specifically said the lower court ruling holds yet
Budi
(15,325 posts)Can they just leave it as it is for eternity?
Do they ever have to rule?
JohnSJ
(91,965 posts)issues involved, not just abortion
Budi
(15,325 posts)Seems that all it takes is an unprovable claim against a woman.
These particular types aren't after the cash reward so much as the damage they can do. Especially in custody situations.
Don't count on Tx courts to side with the woman either.
The accusation once made, leaves it up to the victim to prove untrue.
There are so many affected by this. It's like watching an explosion & knowing that the damage done is farther reaching than just the target we see.
LeftInTX
(24,560 posts)It would have to come from the USSC...
USSC did not act, but it was appealed to the USSC after the 5th Court of Appeals refused an injunction
Freethinker65
(9,934 posts)Activists that sue abettors (I still do not understand how an activist has any standing or was harmed whatsoever by the claimed action, but whatever) will need to prove the female abetted was indeed pregnant and was over six weeks pregnant (not that easy to do if close to six weeks). To do that all women would be required to provide their recent medical records or undergo unnecessary medical tests to determine if an outlawed procedure was indeed performed. As a woman, not actually being sued because that is how the law was designed, I would refuse to provide any information and if forced would raise holy hell. Anyone can accuse anyone of abetting any female (ever pregnant or not) to try to earn 10k. This is a fucking PR disaster for TX Republicans. Most courts will not be happy either with such nonsense.
Freddie
(9,232 posts)I understand the one thing judges hate is frivolous lawsuits. Clog the courts endlessly.
Budi
(15,325 posts)I know some (especially Red) States enacted laws against frivolous lawsuits, which is left up to a handpicked board to determine the frivolous level Before it even can go to a court. Mainly they are the guardians at the gate that protect the State & wealthy Corps, landholders, etc from being sued even when a case clearly has merit.
These were enacted in States to protect Big Corps & Landlords & the Moneyed & political donors from being sued by the 'little people'.
If Tx does have such a law, & a case comes up I don't see them getting anywhere with it, until the frivolous law determining board is replaced with an unbiased one.
Because in Red States like Tx, they have all been purchased for their loyalty, long ago.
Buckeyeblue
(5,491 posts)For instance, I can't randomly sue a driver that caused an accident I wasn't part of because I wasn't harmed.
Wouldn't the same be true of these lawsuits?
And wouldn't they have to prove there was an abortion?
rdking647
(5,113 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)can't blue states ban guns in which private citizens anywhere in the country can sue gun owners?
treestar
(82,383 posts)as it must have to have gotten to SCOTUS.