Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Texas takes its shot at Roe v Wade

We were always headed in this direction. It was just a matter of when we were going to get there.

Texas on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep in place a law that imposes a near-total ban on abortion and urged the justices that if they quickly take up a legal challenge brought by President Joe Biden’s administration they should overturn the landmark ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a legal filing responded to the U.S. Justice Department’s request that the Supreme Court quickly block the Republican-backed state law while litigation over its legality goes forward.

The Justice Department on Monday suggested that the justices could bypass the lower courts already considering the matter and hear arguments in the case themselves. Paxton’s filing said that if the justices do that, they should overturn Supreme Court precedents including Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a woman’s right under the U.S. Constitution to terminate a pregnancy.

“Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion,” Paxton’s filing said, adding that the state law furthers “Texas’s interest in protecting unborn life, which exists from the outset of pregnancy.”

[…]

Paxton on Thursday also asked the Supreme Court to reject a bid by the abortion providers to have the justices immediately hear their case.

See here, here, and here for some background. The forced-birth fanatics on SCOTUS already have an opportunity to overturn or functionally eviscerate Roe in December with that Mississippi case, so this may at least tell us how screwed we all are. Just remember all this in 2022 when we get to vote out some of the zealots that got us here, starting with our felonious Attorney General. The Trib and CNBC have more.

Related Posts:

7 Comments

  1. Ross says:

    Kuff, overturning Roe would have no impact on you, since you can’t get pregnant. Your daughters, yes, you, no.

    I will not be surprised at all if SCOTUS rules that regulation of abortion is a State issue. That conclusion is made easier by the horrifically bad manner is which Roe was written. Instead of the whole penumbras BS, they should have said that the right to medical privacy is implied by the 9th Amendment.

    The ultimate outcome of reversing Roe will be more women dying from either illegal back street abortions, or from medical conditions related to pregnancy, especially if the zealots force through a law that prohibits abortion in every case, arguing that ectopic pregnancies can be reimplanted in the uterus, etc. And, Dan “Despicable Human Being” Patrick will continue to figuratively take those babies by their feet, and smash their heads against a concrete pillar while chanting “personal responsibility, get a job”, because he hates anyone who isn’t just like him.

    Of course, the biggest impact if Roe is reversed is going to be on poor women. The rich women will still get their abortions, either by going out of state, or by going to the doctor for a D&C after their “miscarriage”, just like happened pre-Roe.

  2. Kibitzer says:

    FATHERHOOD ERASURE

    Re: “overturning Roe would have no impact on you, since you can’t get pregnant. Your daughters, yes, you, no.

    Common misconception, no pun intended, given the seriousness of the topic:

    How would it not affect a father in the scenario in which his pregnant daughter is a minor?

    Will he assume the burdens or joys (as the case may be) of supporting another minor (newborn, at least until the teen mother reaches the age of majority). Will he sue the bio dad for paternity establishment and child support as the daughter’s “next friend”, given that the minor, by definition, doesn’t have legal capacity to make a claim in a court of law herself? Or will he procure an abortion for the minor to avoid the incidents and consequences of bringing another human being into the world that cannot take care of itself for years after birth and requires much nurture and care? And what role would parental control or pressure play in all of this, whether or not it is labeled “parental consent”?

    Or will judicial by-pass be resorted to, so the unintended teen pregnancy and its consequeness will be concealed from the two persons who presumptively have the greatest stake in the matter other than the pair of progenitors themselves?

    And if the daughter is no longer a minor, a father may still care whether he will or will not be a granddad independent of having no right and no say in the matter. Must we suppress that notion too now as an unthinkable thought, not to mention an impermissible sentiment? That folks might actually embrace the idea of becoming a grandparent with joy, and might actually be willing to step up and provide support?

    It just boggles the mind (or should) how the males of the species have been aborted out of the abortion debate (except as rapists, pertetrators of incest, and inflictors of domestic violence).

  3. Kibitzer says:

    OUT OF THE SHADOW (DOCKET) AND ONTO THE MAIN STAGE … WITH ALL SPOTLIGHTS DAZZLING

    Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2021)

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    _________________
    No. 21A85 (21-588)
    _________________

    UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL.
    ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT
    OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT

    [October 22, 2021]

    Consideration of the application (21A85) to vacate stay
    presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court
    is deferred pending oral argument.

    In addition, the application is treated as a petition for a
    writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is
    granted limited to the following question:

    May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or
    declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.

    The briefs of the parties in No. 21-588, limited to 13,000
    words, are to be filed electronically on or before 5 p.m.,
    Wednesday, October 27, 2021. Reply briefs, if any, limited
    to 6,000 words, are to be filed electronically on or before 5
    p.m., Friday, October 29, 2021.

    Any amicus curiae briefs are to be filed electronically on or before 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 27, 2021. Booklet format briefs prepared in compliance with Rule 33.1 shall be submitted as soon as possible thereafter. The parties are not required to file a joint appendix.

    The case is set for oral argument on Monday, November 1, 2021.

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a85_5h25.pdf

  4. Jason Hochman says:

    IN the new climate of “screw your freedom,” it is only fitting that Roe v Wade be overturned and condemned to the scrap heap of history. Screw YOUR freedom. Sixty million deaths.

  5. Ross says:

    So, Jason, explain to me how it is any of your damn business what medical procedure a woman and her doctor decide is appropriate. You can’t.

    Are you opposed to abortion for ectopic or tubal pregnancies? How about for other issues that endanger the life of the mother? Do you think all miscarriages should be investigated by police to ensure it wasn’t an abortion? Do you think God should be prosecuted for miscarriages?

  6. Manny says:

    Ross, there you go again, using logic.

  7. […] here. here, here, and here for some background. The 19th adds some […]