Justice Dept sues Texas over state's new abortion law

Under the statute, someone could bring a lawsuit — even if they have no connection to the woman getting an abortion — and could be entitled to at least $10,000 in damages if they prevail in court.

Yep. If an Uber driver takes a woman to get an abortion (which he obviously wouldn't know), he can be sued and will lose $10,000 or more in court, or will have to pay his own court costs if he wins.

And I can bring the lawsuit against him even if I don't know him, the woman, and live out of state.

The Soviet Union used to have its citizens spy on each other too. Gotta love the way “conservatives” in Texas are willing to turn the population against one another just to shove their morals down other’s throats.

It's not surprising. The GQP are the new communists.

The illogical far-right thinks vaccination is an argument for freedom, and the government should stay out of their lives, yet they want the US government to control women's bodies (abortion) with extreme prejudice.

Hypocrisy at its Finest!!

Stupid law. Butnif this what Texans voted for not sure how DoJ thinks they are going to strike it down.

Denying a person their constitutional rights, and at this point in time, Roe v Wade is the law of the land, is a violation of the law.

The suit is likely to be successful at the federal level.

The obvious difference, of course, is that pregnancy isn't contagious. Covid-19 is contagious, therefore the state has a compelling reason to mandate vaccinations

very well-said.

I would think real conservatives would definitely want the civil suing/snitching part gone. If that’s ruled constitutional it’s going to be gloves off for a lot of other things besides women seeking an abortion.

It can’t be allowed to stand. The mischief that will follow will be absurd.

“The act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference announcing the suit.

That’s odd as the same Supreme court ruled in favor of this. So must be constitutional.

Nice yet but nah. We know how the Supreme Court ruled.

Justice Dept sues Texas over state's new abortion law

good!!!

meanwhile in other news in more progressive countries...

France makes birth control free for women up to 25 - Japan Today

Nice yet but nah. We know how the Supreme Court ruled.

Yeah, because P. Smith just quoted it:

The court voted 5-4 to deny an emergency appeal from abortion providers and others but also suggested that their order likely wasn’t the last word and other challenges can be brought.

Nice yet but nah. We know how the Supreme Court ruled.

Apparently you don’t. Denying an injunction does a SCOTUS ruling make.

The case will wind its way through the circuit and appellate levels where the federal suit is likely to be successful as the Texas law clearly stands in violation of existing precedent.

Then SCOTUS will invite briefs and oral arguments THEN AND ONLY THEN will we know if all the Federalist Society propaganda about precedent and anti-judicial activism is just that, propaganda.

That’s the media spin part:

“but also suggested that their order likely wasn’t the last word and other challenges can be brought.”

What they ruled 5-4 was that Texas can proceed. None of you made these little distinctions while claiming Trump “lost” at Supreme Court,

you lost, or else you wouldnt have to cry to the DOJ to sue in a partisan political manner.

Oh yet the same lot of you claimed other cases were lost or ruled against when the actual ruling was just "no standing", not any examination of the actual case.

Curious that you now pull out such distinctions. "we didnt lose, they just didnt rule in our favor". So now we will weaponize the DOJ (and go find Brett Kavanaugh's home again) to try affect the outcome.

When you get your case tossed on standing it means you lose because you have no valid right to bring a suit. In other words you lose.

When the court Denys an emergency injunction, it is failing to act NOW. It will hear the case should it arise (and this one will) in the normal order.

So apples and oranges. But thank for playing! We have some nice parting gifts for you.

also means you LOST "now". Thats why you have to sue to try to change the fact that you lost.

it is failing to act NOW

Oh yet the same lot of you claimed other cases were lost or ruled against when the actual ruling was just "no standing", not any examination of the actual case

To have standing in a civil lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate they suffered a direct loss, and further they must demonstrate the remedy they seek will prevent in the future the act that caused them to suffer a direct loss. I cannot see how anyone not immediately involved in the family of a woman who decided to have an abortion could possibly claim they experienced any kind of direct loss. Even family members would have a difficult time proving loss from a relative having an abortion. Perhaps the only person who could successfully press such a claim would be the father and even that is a maybe. Someone off the street trying to claim in court they suffered a direct loss from some Uber driver taking a woman to an abortion clinic is not going to get very far I suspect. Judge will ask "what loss have you suffered?" and that will be the end of the case.

No. Your argument is that the unvaccinated are putting other people in danger, and therefore, the state has a right to force them to put something into their bodies.

I didn't say anything about forcing people to put things into their body. You do have a choice; get vaccinated or lose your job. That is your decision.

I do not, however, think the state should tie people down and forcefully innoculate citizens.

On the other hand, when women put other people in danger, aka, the fetus via an abortion, you’re against the state taking action to protect that person.

That "person" is a clump of cells, without the ability to think and make its own decisions. The mother can, and should, decide whether or not to carry the baby to term.

You can’t be pro-vaccine mandate, yet pro-my body my right when it concerns women and abortion.

I can, and indeed, I am. Likewise, you should probably pick up on the hypocrisy of forcing women to carry babies to term, but insisting on your right not to be vaccinated.

That’s odd as the same Supreme court ruled in favor of this. So must be constitutional.

Uh, no that's not what they ruled.

It will hear the case should it arise (and this one will) in the normal order.

You intentionally left out the 2nd part of the sentence. No, we didn’t lose. SCOTUS denied an emergency injunction (mistakenly in my opinion)

The case will still be heard as the applicant has standing, unlike the failed former guy who’s suits got tossed as merit less BECAUSE he lacked standing. Now THATS losing.

 Your argument is that the unvaccinated are putting other people in danger, and therefore, the state has a right to force them to put something into their bodies

That is a legally valid argument. The US Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905) that states have the right to require residents to take a vaccination against a disease causing a pandemic. Please read the majority opinion in that case written by Associate Justice John Harlan. It address this point directly.

A clump of human cells that will develop into a human, not a lizard or a cat, but a human being.

Will. Not is. There you have it, in your own words. It's not a human, but it may be. Why should something, not even a human, have the same rights as the mother carrying it? Why should women be forced to put themselves at risk?

 That’s the way we arrive on earth. The mother is not creator of life, and therefore has no right to terminate it, unless it is directly harming the life of the mother.

Even in cases of rape or incest?

Forcing a women to take responsibility for her own sexuality and decisions is not hypocritical

It absolutely is hypocritical. You're forcing women to give birth, but you are outraged that you are being forced to get a vaccine. You cannot demand body autonomy for yourself, while insisting women have no body autonomy. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 of babies and using the euphemism of women’s reproductive healthcare. The state should stop all murderers. The state can’t force a women to do anything, but it can make laws against murder and refuse to participate in it.

Killing a clump of cells isn't murder. Knock it off with the hyperbole. Even in your own words, you've acknowledged those cells aren't a human being.

Pakkun was on his Friday TV Tokyo slot today talking about this.

I was amused by how he characterized the conservative position as abortion being “against god’s will”, and not about killing unborn babies, versus a woman’s rights.

Personally I think it’s a complicated issue either way, but so long as my taxes aren’t being used to pay to kill unborn babies, what business is it of mine? But it’s difficult to draw a clear line on when it becomes ok to kill an unborn baby.