Justice Department sues Texas to block six-week abortion ban
Last edited Thu Sep 9, 2021, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Washington Post
President Bidens Justice Department sued the state of Texas on Thursday to try to block the nations most restrictive abortion law, which bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a woman terminate her pregnancy. Attorney General Merrick Garland has scheduled an afternoon news conference to announce the lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin.
Garlands decision to intervene comes after a divided Supreme Court last week refused to stop enforcement of the law, which prohibits most abortions in Texas at a stage when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. The only exceptions are when a womans health or life are at stake. President Biden and Democrats in Congress have sharply criticized the law and the Supreme Courts decision not to block a ban that they say clearly violates a womans constitutional right to an abortion. The law took effect Sept. 1.
A dozen other states have passed legislation banning abortion after about six weeks into pregnancy. But federal judges have stopped those measures from taking effect, finding the laws inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to choose abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks. The Texas law was designed to withstand a similar preemptive legal challenge. It intentionally bars enforcement by state government officials, whom abortion providers would typically target in a lawsuit.
Instead, the law empowers private citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after the six-week window. Those private citizens can receive a $10,000 award if their lawsuits are successful. Individuals can target abortion providers, clinic workers or those who help a woman pay for the procedure or drive her to a clinic.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-abortion-justice-lawsuit/2021/09/09/5d3eae0a-117a-11ec-9cb6-bf9351a25799_story.html
Here is a link to the court filing (PDF) - https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1431596/download
LiberalFighter
(50,761 posts)wryter2000
(46,023 posts)Should be suing Abbott and DeSantis. Thousands and thousands of lawsuits.
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)Along with all the others playing out putin's agenda to destroy our democracy!
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 9, 2021, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
You'd need a really large jail to hold all the "officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under S.B. 8." That's several million people. I doubt that the Feds are going to be rounding up Texas DMV clerks.
{edited} Nowhere does it say that those private parties have to live in Texas.
The lawsuit is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Defendant.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff is the United States of America.
11. Defendant, the State of Texas, is a State of the United States. The State of Texas includes all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under S.B. 8.
{snip}
Rand Paul just called for the arrest of Anthony Fauci. I hope that the US is still a place where we don't put people in jail just because they upset us.
Ford_Prefect
(7,867 posts)wryter2000
(46,023 posts)Sounds like they have a really strong case.
underpants
(182,584 posts)The only exceptions are when a womans health or life are at stake.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Updated 3:10 PM ET, Thu September 9, 2021
(CNN)The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Thursday to challenge the restrictive Texas abortion law.
Read the lawsuit here:
{snip}
elleng
(130,704 posts)elleng
(130,704 posts)The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to uphold the rule of law, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a news conference at the Justice Department. Today we fulfill that duty, he said of the lawsuit. . .
Mr. Garland also said on Thursday that the Texas law exposes federal employees, including at the departments of Defense, Labor and Health, to civil liability should they exercise their authorities related to abortion services. He argued that that makes the legislation invalid, both under the supremacy clause of the Constitution that gives precedence to federal law over state law and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.'
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/us/politics-news
bucolic_frolic
(43,027 posts)Is it Christian to run around spying on people and suing them for opportunistic damages to ruin their financial lives?
Christian Snitches I'd call them.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,027 posts)So foreign hackers, already lifting our financial data, can obtain confidential communiques, and perhaps sell that info, or come to the US and sue, and apply for citizenship while they're at it.
The deeper I dig the more I suspect something is way off with this law, more than meets the eye.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)the way you put it, it sounds like some global racket. Yes. WAY off and lucre level filthy.
Scrivener7
(50,901 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Now how about an injunction to stop the law from going into effect before the DOJ case reaches a conclusion?
elleng
(130,704 posts)The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to uphold the rule of law, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a news conference at the Justice Department. Today we fulfill that duty, he said of the lawsuit.'
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/us/politics-news
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)I think you just made my day!
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Now we know why repukes built the fence.
No need to drive to Canada.
LeftInTX
(25,093 posts)The next day, the NY Times did an in-depth.
Stated abortion was not legalized and only thqt women could no longer be prosecuted for obtaining abortions in Coahuila.
Abortion still remains illegal and prosecuted in San Luis Potosi and ruling did not apply to SLP.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Abortion Is No Longer a Crime in Mexico. NYT
Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish abortion as a crime, a landmark ruling that clears the way for the legalization of abortion across the country. NPR
Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled that criminal penalties for terminating pregnancies are unconstitutional.
The ruling, for the northern state of Coahuila, prevents women from being prosecuted for getting an abortion. BBC
In a unanimous 10-0 ruling, the top court ordered the northern state of Coahuila to remove sanctions for abortion from its criminal code with several justices arguing the prohibitions on voluntarily interrupting a pregnancy violated womens rights. The Guardian
I would think the ruling applies to the whole country but the case was brought against the state of Coahuila. Not sure not a lawyer.
LeftInTX
(25,093 posts)Kinda like pot...
But since this is a medical procedure, I have no idea how this works.
But in Mexico it used to be that money talked and people looked the other way, especially if a rich American doctor sets up shop.
Women used to go to the border and get abortions in Mexico before Roe V Wade. But alot of weird things happened in Mexico, like Steve McQueen getting his bizarre treatment. (Steve was treated by an American quack in Mexico)
wiggs
(7,809 posts)that makes it seem like a political issue for democrats rather than a legitimate legal issue for most of the american public. Again, angry that media wants to report on a political fight rather than objectively report on issues.
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,370 posts)it will be in federal court here (per the filing) - THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Of the sitting judges (not counting the senior judges), there are 2 Clinton appointees, 2 Obama appointees, 3 TFG appointees, 5 Shrub appointees, and 1 vacancy
Here is a copy of the filing (PDF) - https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1431596/download
Excerpt from Garland's statement -
Washington, DC ~ Thursday, September 9, 2021
(snip)
The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights.
The United States also brings this suit to assert other federal interests that SB8 unconstitutionally impairs. Among other things, SB8 conflicts with federal law by prohibiting federal agencies from exercising their authorities and carrying out their responsibilities under federal laws relating to abortion services.
It also subjects federal employees and non-governmental partners who implement those laws to civil liability and penalties.
Among the federal agencies and programs whose operations the statute unconstitutionally restricts are the Labor Departments Job Corps Program, the Defense Departments TRICARE Health Program, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Bureau of Prisons, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Office of Personnel Management.
The complaint therefore seeks a declaratory judgment that SB8 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The United States also seeks a permanent and preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute against the State of Texas including against the States officers, employees and agents, and private parties it has effectively deputized who would bring suit under SB8.
(snip)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-announcing-lawsuit-against-state-0
So for any appeals, it would go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and then obviously the SCOTUS after that.
ETA - for the 5th Circuit, Turtle helped pack it so there are 6 TFG appointees, 4 Shrub appointees, 3 Obama appointees, 2 Clinton appointees, and 2 Raygun appointees.
Marthe48
(16,893 posts)lots of women with hysterectomies went to texas clinics that still offer abortions and wore the fake pregnant bellies? They could hang out inside for awhile, take the belly off (all documented), leave the clinic, make sure the protesters outside get her name, so they sue her and the clinic. When it gets to court, tada-no baby, no abortion, frivolous lawsuit. Make the mad dogs look like idiots, show how stupid the law is.
BumRushDaShow
(128,370 posts)It would be like drawing a penalty...