7 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Subject matter at mind......

This is what happens when the ball swings from one extreme to the other. There are compromises to be had here.

Elections have consequences. That's how we got here. Now the GOP is going to have to deal with the consequences of the 40 year step backwards in women's rights. Conservatives are going to be wearing this one for a loooooong time. So, yeah, no compromises. Pucker up. It should be a fun one.

8 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Hmmmmm

If you were a staunch pro-choice advocate, I would see that as good news, to be honest.

8 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

 

I'd bet money Gorsuch flips when it comes time to hear the case. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

If you were a staunch pro-choice advocate, I would see that as good news, to be honest.

Yep, and even more so if you were a Democratic strategist.  It's a God-send for the Dems in Congressional races and a serious issue for Republicans.  It's exactly what everyone said would happen with a comfortably right wing court.  No exceptions for rape or incest?  Check.   Asking people to rat on their neighbors who simply help out a desperate woman?  That's a check no one saw coming.  Republicans are hell-bent on staying in the minority.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Yep, and even more so if you were a Democratic strategist.  It's a God-send for the Dems in Congressional races and a serious issue for Republicans.  It's exactly what everyone said would happen with a comfortably right wing court.  No exceptions for rape or incest?  Check.   Asking people to rat on their neighbors who simply help out a desperate woman?  That's a check no one saw coming.  Republicans are hell-bent on staying in the minority.

I meant more so that Roberts is now a lock, and Gorsuch likely flips when it comes time to hear the case. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I meant more so that Roberts is now a lock, and Gorsuch likely flips when it comes time to hear the case. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

Not sure what gives you that impression.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Not sure what gives you that impression.

For the reasons vikas stated, the standard for an emergency injunction is higher than it is to overturn precedent when hearing a case. And once they hear it, I doubt the law stands given precedent. Gorsuch doesn't seem like one to ignore precedent.

30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

For the reasons vikas stated, the standard for an emergency injunction is higher than it is to overturn precedent when hearing a case. And once they hear it, I doubt the law stands given precedent. Gorsuch doesn't seem like one to ignore precedent.

The longer it goes on the more the irreparable damage is done. The list of women who are affected by this, who are discovering pregnancies too late will only grow. You're going to have a group of women who, even if it's overturned, are going to be forced into making decisions on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions... which are absolutely devastating and life changing events to everyone involved.

And that's the kind of criteria that I thought vikas was talking about.

31 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

For the reasons vikas stated, the standard for an emergency injunction is higher than it is to overturn precedent when hearing a case. And once they hear it, I doubt the law stands given precedent. Gorsuch doesn't seem like one to ignore precedent.

Actually Kavanaugh may be a good bet to stick with precedent as well.  Although a frat boy, he isn't weak on the law part.  He knows the law. 

 

3 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

The longer it goes on the more the irreparable damage is done. The list of women who are affected by this, who are discovering pregnancies too late will only grow. You're going to have a group of women who, even if it's overturned, are going to be forced into making decisions on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions... which are absolutely devastating and life changing events to everyone involved.

Agreed 100%. There will no doubt be many women that will be influenced by this law, but long-term, I'm not as sure as you guys that it's a forgone conclusion the law will stand.

4 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

The longer it goes on the more the irreparable damage is done. The list of women who are affected by this, who are discovering pregnancies too late will only grow. You're going to have a group of women who, even if it's overturned, are going to be forced into making decisions on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions... which are absolutely devastating and life changing events to everyone involved.

If I lived in TX I would openly and flagrantly assist a pregnant woman   -- I would practically  invite a lawsuit.  It wouldn't cost me anything -- as pro choice groups would pay to defend me and even pay the $10,000 likely if that ever happened.    I would love to take on some yahoo trying to use that law.   The standing issue alone could go to the Supreme court.  

1 minute ago, caesar said:

If I lived in TX I would openly and flagrantly assist a pregnant woman   -- I would practically  invite a lawsuit.  It wouldn't cost me anything -- as pro choice groups would pay to defend me and even pay the $10,000 likely if that ever happened.    I would love to take on some yahoo trying to use that law.   The standing issue alone could go to the Supreme court.  

I'd help my daughter get through to a clinic if she needed it. 

1 minute ago, mayanh8 said:

I'd help my daughter get through to a clinic if she needed it. 

Or just fly her to another state.  Then if you get sued -- join the airline as a defendant for "aiding and abetting" under the TX law.   Love to see the airline defend against that stupid law.

Sotomayor lays it all out in her dissent:

Because if SCOTUS had to make a decision and applied precedent, the new TX law will be found unconstitutional. Texas has effectively thrown a monkey wrench into the system, so conservative courts and justices can drag their feet, allowing the law to stand for who knows how long.

5 hours ago, toolg said:

I was told the court is not political.

I was told it was. 🙅

5 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Elections have consequences. That's how we got here. Now the GOP is going to have to deal with the consequences of the 40 year step backwards in women's rights. Conservatives are going to be wearing this one for a loooooong time. So, yeah, no compromises. Pucker up. It should be a fun one.

I'm always ready for a fight. Was surprises most is how ready because they don't even know I'm paying attention. 😏

5 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

I'm always ready for a fight. Was surprises most is how ready because they don't even know I'm paying attention. 😏

That's just f'ing awesome!

13 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

I'm always ready for a fight. Was surprises most is how ready because they don't even know I'm paying attention. 😏

Bear Grylls?  Is that you?

6 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Well, this is exactly what moderate GOP politicians said would never happen. They campaigned on it in 2020. Now they're going to have to defend it in 2022 and beyond. Taking away a woman's right to choose is an extremely difficult position to defend when 81% of women support the right to choose.

And to be crystal clear, because I know some will try and present it as "middle ground", the TX law is not a compromise. Most women who aren't trying to get pregnant don't even know they're pregnant before the first 6 weeks. I know that first hand.

This has a chance to be a uniting issue for the left. Tearing down Roe v. Wade used to be a boogyman issue that some on the left never really took seriously. Now it has happened. 2022 is going to be wild. 

As difficult as this new situation in Texas is packing SCOTUS and getting rid of the filibuster is not the answer.

I agree 100% that the run up to 2022 and then to 2024 is going to be wild within the Democratic Party.  I expected more of an open struggle to have broken out already but I think this new situation will move the needle.

19 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

As difficult as this new situation in Texas is packing SCOTUS and getting rid of the filibuster is not the answer.

I agree 100% that the run up to 2022 and then to 2024 is going to be wild within the Democratic Party.  I expected more of an open struggle to have broken out already but I think this new situation will move the needle.

Abortion is a uniting issue for Democrats at the polls. 

6 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Abortion is a uniting issue for Democrats at the polls. 

Yes it sure is at the polls.

AOC already out there hammering away at calling for packing the court.  This will light a fire under the progressives.

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes it sure is at the polls.

That's all the matters. The GOP is an absolute dumpster fire under the hood but they have no issues coming together at the polls to support batshit crazy politicians and policies.

7 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Well, this is exactly what moderate GOP politicians said would never happen. They campaigned on it in 2020. Now they're going to have to defend it in 2022 and beyond. Taking away a woman's right to choose is an extremely difficult position to defend when 81% of women support the right to choose.

And to be crystal clear, because I know some will try and present it as "middle ground", the TX law is not a compromise. Most women who aren't trying to get pregnant don't even know they're pregnant before the first 6 weeks. I know that first hand.

This has a chance to be a uniting issue for the left. Tearing down Roe v. Wade used to be a boogyman issue that some on the left never really took seriously. Now it has happened. 2022 is going to be wild. 

I've seen this repeated so many times.  Regardless of what someone feels about the law banning abortions beyond 6 weeks, can we stop with this?   6 weeks pregnant means that you're 2 weeks past your missed period.  If you're sexually active and are so not ready for a child that you'd consider an abortion if you ended up pregnant, then what are you doing not going to the local drug store to pick up a pregnancy test if your period is late?   Pro-choice advocates do their cause no favors by basically throwing a cloud of irresponsibility over the people they are trying to support.  

5 hours ago, toolg said:

Sotomayor lays it all out in her dissent:

Because if SCOTUS had to make a decision and applied precedent, the new TX law will be found unconstitutional. Texas has effectively thrown a monkey wrench into the system, so conservative courts and justices can drag their feet, allowing the law to stand for who knows how long.

Welcome to Texas, where women are treated as second class citizens.

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I've seen this repeated so many times.  Regardless of what someone feels about the law banning abortions beyond 6 weeks, can we stop with this?   6 weeks pregnant means that you're 2 weeks past your missed period.  If you're sexually active and are so not ready for a child that you'd consider an abortion if you ended up pregnant, then what are you doing not going to the local drug store to pick up a pregnancy test if your period is late?   Pro-choice advocates do their cause no favors by basically throwing a cloud of irresponsibility over the people they are trying to support.  

Not every woman's period is the same and more women than you'd think have irregular cycles caused by a great many health variables. This gets especially tricky during menopause. My wife is one of these cases. Our youngest child was conceived despite us practicing safe sex. We found out after six weeks.