world

Justice Department again presses to halt Texas abortion law

44 Comments
By PAUL J. WEBER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Let's set aside for a moment that this law is laughably unconstitutional as the law currently stands.

Let's just look at the politics of it. Texas and Abbot are driving hoards of women into the arms of the Democrats and they will vote on this issue.

Anti-choice nuts have been chasing this car for 50 years. They may have caught it. Good luck with that.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

No, just using history as a marking indicator.

That’s what I do whenever I see one of your predictions, it’s pretty fail safe.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wolfpack

If the mother has a right to privacy shouldn’t female babies also have a right to privacy? If these females have a heartbeat and brain function and are sentient beings like their mother, they should at least be given the right to legal representation before being terminated.

Not according to the constitution.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Does anyone here even support the law as it's written? With no exceptions for rape and incest, and people suing other people?

I know some people are against abortion.....but is this what you wanted?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

One needs look no farther than the vigilante portion of this "law" to see that it is a laughably absurd attempt to get around the courts and insulate the state from being sued over a low IT ENACTED.

IF this were to be upheld, Liberals could create all kinds of vigilante laws creating bounties on any type of behavior which is legal but that they disagree with.

Not the kind of precedent that SCOTUS would really like to have in place.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

And they’re probably going to fail again.

Your clairvoyance has adopted an element of cautious uncertainty of late.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wolfpack

There have been many times in history when opposition to inhumanity towards others has been unpopular and driven the Democrats electoral success. For example their support for slavery, Jim Crow, eugenics, and segregation have elevated many Democrats into positions of power.

Yes, and there was a time when people thought it was perfectly normal to deny women autonomy over their own bodies. Thankfully, we live in more enlightened times.

So yes, the Democrat party, now pretty much a death cult, hasn’t changed much.

This isn't a Democrat / Republican thing. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans support abortion.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Attilathehungry

Hindsights- the difference is that the fifth choice (abortion) ends another life. The four choices I suggested do not.

I note you didn't use the words human life. Because the constitution doesn't see it as such and abortion isn't murder.

Therefore no reason for you to limit that constitutional choice from someone else.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Repubs and Trump supporters on vaccine and mask mandates;

"Give me my freedom - the government has no authority over my health choices"...

"What I do to my body is between my doctor and me - not government"....

"Bottomline: My Body, My Choice!"....

OK, so what about a woman's right to choose regarding her pregnancy - her body, her choice, right?

"Well....uh....er....but....ummm...."

Utter hypocrites...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This is rather a personal point for me as I was adopted in Massachusetts in 1965, when abortion was illegal, and raised by a singly mother. On one hand, I'm grateful to my birth mother for my life; on the other, should she have had the ability to choose otherwise, I would have understood (had I been sentient). Identifying paternity and requiring the father take a financial and active roll in raising a child would likely change Texas opinions rapidly.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Utter hypocrites...

Liberals the last people to call anyone a hypocrite. Lol

Lol...."My Body, My Choice", right?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Attilathehungry

Women already have plenty of choices- abstinence, birth control, motherhood, adoption. Why do they need yet another choice,

Because it's their body. Who are you to decide which choices women have...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Zichi, as I said, not a fan of the Texas law. I will grant the exceptions for rape and incest that seem to inform your position. Also for circumstances where the mother's life will be in danger by continuing the pregnancy.

Still my four choices are left. Do you disagree with them? They provide a range of viable actions for women that do not involve killing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Attilathehungry

There is no reason for me to try and limit a person from taking another's life? Are you serious? You can dance around the turd all you want, but that is in effect what you are saying.

No I'm not. I notice you don't say human life. It isn't a human life and it isn't murder. There is no dancing around this. The woman should be the sole person making this choice. Not you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Zichi, you are strawmanning vibrantly... never said "outlaw all abortions". Don't support the Texas bill. Already answered your hypothetical about the 13 year old victim- yes, she should be able to choose.

Babies must be fully self sustainable to be called "babies"? Those born who require medical intervention aren't babies? Stillbirths and miscarriages aren't part of the discussion but seem like a distraction.

This is one of those interesting topics (similar to voting rights) where Europe is far less, dare I say "liberal" than the US.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Zichi, OK. Add foetal deformity/non-viability to the list of exceptions.

As I understand, you see viability at the 20 week point as the limit. So, women should not be allowed to obtain abortions after 20 weeks (except the unique circumstances we both agree on- rape, incest, danger to health, possible birth defect). Is that your position? If so, what should the penalties be for those who abort viable and healthy babies after that point?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Women already have plenty of choices- abstinence, birth control, motherhood, adoption. Why do they need yet another choice, especially when that choice clearly leads to disparate outcomes in the BIPOC community? It truly seems to be fulfilling the eugenic fantasies of Margaret Sanger.a

Men, by contrast, have no choice. They are at the mercy of whatever decision the woman makes. What if the father-to-be wants to raise the child? Shouldn't the temporary inconvenience of carrying out the pregnancy (which the woman tacitly agreed to by having consensual sex) be outweighed by the rights of the baby and father?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Hindsights- the difference is that the fifth choice (abortion) ends another life. The four choices I suggested do not.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There is no reason for me to try and limit a person from taking another's life? Are you serious? You can dance around the turd all you want, but that is in effect what you are saying.

I will let the lawyers and judges do their thing and accept the results. I am not a fan of the Texas law, I think it goes too far and too fast, but the essential issue is about life and when it begins.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Abortions have happened since the beginning of people.

yes so has murder and racism and slavery and so many other things we dont support.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Let's set aside for a moment that this law is laughably unconstitutional as the law currently stands.

the court didn’t agree with this claim, did it? I didn’t hear that they laughed about it either.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law.

oh, like when courts ruled only that there was no standing and you made this same distinction?

Oh wait....Except that you didnt do that.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Utter hypocrites...

Liberals the last people to call anyone a hypocrite. Lol

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

liberals and their "slogans" presented with lack context and that are a product of binary thinking.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Your clairvoyance has adopted an element of cautious uncertainty of late.

No, just using history as a marking indicator.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@GdTokyo: Anti-choice nuts have been chasing this car for 50 years. They may have caught it. Good luck with that.

There have been many times in history when opposition to inhumanity towards others has been unpopular and driven the Democrats electoral success. For example their support for slavery, Jim Crow, eugenics, and segregation have elevated many Democrats into positions of power. So yes, the Democrat party, now pretty much a death cult, hasn’t changed much.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

And they’re probably going to fail again.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

This ridiculous affront to the privacy rights of women is par for the course for hypocritical republicans/“conservatives.”

If the mother has a right to privacy shouldn’t female babies also have a right to privacy? If these females have a heartbeat and brain function and are sentient beings like their mother, they should at least be given the right to legal representation before being terminated.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites