Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 02, 2021

Not mentioned in the article is the most damning aspect of this new law. It allows any person, from any state to sue any provider of abortions or any woman seeking an abortion or anyone who assists he for $10,000 in damages.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Some people, likely a lot of them, will use this law in order to exact revenge and other personal agendas. My fervent hope is that the awfulness of this thing falls as much on the supporters of this vigilante fascism as the rest of of us.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-02 09:25 AM | Reply

Millions of Americans should start going to abortion clinics just so the anti-abortion a******s will try to sue them even though they aren't seeking abortions. This law is one of the most hate filled laws passed since Jim Crow. This era in Texas will be remembered and the Republicans are going to lose Texas because of it.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-02 09:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Don't worry! I expect Democrats to fight this like crazy...by posting many angry tweets and asking for more campaign money.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-09-02 10:10 AM | Reply

That law will not past through the courts. No way.

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-09-02 11:36 AM | Reply

"That law will not past through the courts."

A distinction without a difference, to the women in need today. It's currently the standing law.

The Kaptain Kegganaugh Kourt should be ashamed.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 11:52 AM | Reply

"Kaptain Kegganaugh Kourt"

More like The Comey Court.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-02 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans are going to lose Texas because of it.
#2 | Posted by danni

I'd like to think you're right but Texans have been voting for ---- like this since the Civil War.

#7 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2021-09-02 05:57 PM | Reply

Republicans are going to lose Texas because of it.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

Republicans are going to lose Texas?

I doubt it. Texas also just passed some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation.

More like: Democrats are about to lose America. Thanks to Manchin and Sinema.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-09-02 06:08 PM | Reply

I'm not sure how effective it will be but the rest of america should boycott any and everything from Texas.

I know my daughter's college decision was based, in part, on not wanting to go to a school in a regressive state (in her case GA).

I think it is high time to stop supporting these asshats.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-02 06:49 PM | Reply

www.zippia.com

start boycotting Pizzhut, dell, JC Penney, Whole Foods, Frito-Lay, 7-11, Texas Instruments, etc

---- em

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-02 06:53 PM | Reply

I wonder if there is a limit on how many times the provider can be sued for the same act. I'm thinking that after a provider has been sued a lot of people could line up for their $10,000. Each suing for the same case.

#11 | Posted by Charliecharles at 2021-09-02 06:58 PM | Reply

This gets me thinking. CA, Illinois or NY should pass an anti gun law and allow private citizens to enforce it.

What's good for the goose stepping morons is good for the geese.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-02 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 - that's like saying, "Boycott China!"

I especially found humor in the TI suggestion. What do you expect people to do when they buy their next electronic device? Open it up and see if any of the chips came from TI?

Speaking of boycotting might make people feel good and give them a chance to virtue signal, but boycotting is usually impractical and impossible to pull off on a meaningful scale. Face it -- people are too greedy and wrapped up in themselvevs to be willing to give even a small part of their world up.

#13 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 07:07 PM | Reply

Speaking of boycotts, what if many Texas women implement "Lysistrate" (Aristophanes) to sway their husbands / boyfriends / partners to knock some sense into Texas government?

And, don't plaintiffs in civil lawsuits have to show "personal harm" which will will make this "law" effectively unenforceable? If courts will throw a few "test cases" the "law" will die its natural death.

#14 | Posted by CutiePie at 2021-09-02 07:49 PM | Reply

Stop the hand wringing. When the USSC hears the arguments in the case, the law will be nullified.

#15 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 07:59 PM | Reply

"When the USSC hears the arguments in the case"

The case they just declined to hear?

Classic "Jakester."

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 08:00 PM | Reply

"When the USSC hears the arguments in the case"
The case they just declined to hear?
Classic "Jakester."

#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The SC refused to hear it based on procedural grounds, it will come back to them in other cases. From what I have read this law is an attack on third party lawsuits. It is a way to disallow, say Planned Parenthood, from contesting the law, requiring an individual woman to sue.

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-02 08:04 PM | Reply

#17 - exactly. The court already said they would re-hear it. As you say, they will hear it from an individual, just as Roe v Wade was a single individual.

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants,
v.
Henry WADE.

No. 70-18.

Argued Dec. 13, 1971.

Reargued Oct. 11, 1972.

Decided Jan. 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1973.

See 410 U.S. 959, 93 S.Ct. 1409.

Syllabus

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford. Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclose when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review,' is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688. Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

www.law.cornell.edu

#18 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 08:16 PM | Reply

Practicing law without a license is a felony.

#19 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-02 08:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Practicing law without a clue is hysterical.

#20 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-02 08:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort