• Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Unfortunately that makes her an outlaw in Texas doesn’t it?

    (not familiar with the details, but I thought I’d read they’ll prosecute out-of-state procedures as well. Same with travelers passing through Texas to receive an abortion elsewhere)

    • 52fighters@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      There would be no penalty in this case. The law prohibits enforcement against the mother and activities that take place outside of the state are also not enforceable by Texas. The exception is if someone drives her to the state line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion or gives her money while both are situated in the State of Texas, although interesting would be a case where one is in Texas and the other isn’t, bringing up the interstate commerce clause.

      Texas allows medical exceptions. I have not yet read why this case did not qualify for the exception. Presumably because the court did not agree the mother’s life was at serious risk? Has anyone a good read of the court’s ruling?

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because Ken Paxton is a piece of shit. The judge heard the testimony from doctors and decided it should go ahead. Ol’ Ken pushed it to the TSC because he knew they would sit on the case until she had the stillborn birth.

        Republicans want to punish women simply because.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Don’t get Paxton’s play here, lose-lose proposition. Someone put yourself in his shoes and give me one reason this is a smart move.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Because it fulfills their goal of revenge against women for rejecting them, having rights, etc.

            And that fulfills the goal of pleasing their bible-thumper and alt-right base, who seek vengeance against women for those and a myriad of other reasons.

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s a facile reply. Of course his base will love it, most of 'em, but what could he possibly gain by this?

              And let’s not pretend like its Paxton’s personal mission to hate on women. From his point of view, this is pure politics. LOL, like he has some sort of moral code driving him.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Why am I supposed to care about your half-wit opinion about my reply? Address the substance of discussion. Don’t waste my time with your ham-fisted attempt to put me down thinking it will get you anywhere.

                This assclown’s mOrAL cOdE is hating on women, to start.

                Now try addressing that, and only that, and leave me out of it if you are capable of that. I know it’s asking a lot

          • WraithGear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The only people who consider this a lose lose would not vote for him either way. But it galvanizes his base. Especially when you consider certain people would rather blame the mother. How they justify this blame is the only creativity i have seen from such people.

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You’re hitting at my point. His base is voting for him no matter what, so there’s no political gain here. Not like those people were sitting on the fence, but any who were got pushed right the fuck off his side.

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              And how well do you suppose the Supreme Court will love him for chunking a clear decision from a lower court? Conservative or liberal, judges want to take cases with at least a semblance of legal nuance.

              The Court recently told Alabama that a lower court’s ruling stands on voting fuckery and just today refused to hear a case regarding “pray the gay away” camps, again upholding a lower ruling to allow the ban.

    • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That can be fought without the looming deadline of a pregnancy coming to term. Dunno if she’s willing to go through with that, or if she’s just not planning to ever return to Texas (it’s not like, Cali, say, would ever extradite, and Texas sending troopers across state lines to bring her back is some Fugitive Slave Act 2: Electric Boogaloo shit that would absolutely not fly).

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Hypothetically yes but good luck trying to enforce it against the Interstate commerce clause