Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks ruling that allowed woman emergency abortion
Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks ruling that allowed woman emergency abortion
Texas woman Kate Cox appeared remotely for a hearing in her lawsuit against the state. She asked for an abortion to preserve her fertility.
You're viewing a single thread.
What a reasonable government you have over there on the other side of the Atlantic.
/s
We're not all idiots.
A month ago, Ohio voters added reproductive rights to our constitution. Now, abortion is guaranteed to the point of fetal viability. Beyond that point, you just need the medical opinion of a single doctor that the abortion would improve the health of the mother (including her mental health) to secure an abortion.
If this woman gets on a plane to Cleveland this morning, she can be back in Texas tonight, minus a doomed fetus.
Oh I would never say that everyone is an idiot. Just that your system of governance is badly constructed.
It's a beta that went to production.
And the biggest bugs aren't being patched.
The code went live and we have upgrades and patches ready to go, but first we need product manager approval from 50 stadiums full of competing tribes of angry baboons.
And the weirdest part is that people vote for the baboons to go into the stadiums to approve the patches!
Well, the baboons made the rules so we have to vote for them
It was a temporary solution thats now the foundation
Didn’t Texas make it illegal to go out of state to get around their bans?
Yes, it is S.B 8. It is a completely messed up bill that allows anyone to sue someone for $10,000, plus court and attorney fees, for performing an abortion or aiding or abetting in an abortion. In other words, if someone gets an abortion, anyone can sue them, their doctor, the nurses, the Uber driver who took them to the clinic, their husband who agreed with their decision, or anyone else who could be said to have helped them get an abortion.
One bit of good news is that, in one case, a judge decided that you need to have standing to sue. That means that in order to sue someone under the law, you need to be personally affected by the abortion.
San Antonio judge Aaron Hass dismissed Gomez’ case Thursday, and that dismissal pointed to a central problem with S.B. 8: it has the potential to allow the wrong people to wage abortion lawsuits. Hass announced the dismissal of Gomez’s case from the bench and explained that plaintiffs like Gomez, who have no connection to the prohibited abortion and have not been harmed by it, do not have standing suit under the statute.
More good news is that the law has been challenge before the Texas supreme court. They have heard the case in in coming weeks or months they will make a decision.
Ok so not illegal— just too expensive for the poors. Sounds just right for the GOP.
Thanks for the detailed reply!
Aren't Ohio reps fighting the new constitutional amendment and it's not officially in the Constitution even though it should be?
Yes, they are fighting it; no, they have not been able to block it from being added to the constitution. It became effective as of Thursday, December 7th.
Nice! Glad they couldn't block it from being added after 30 days. Hopefully people keep up the fight and get rid of these anti-democracy assholes.
What about a financially poor 14 year old who was raped? She couldn't do that on her own. This woman is challenging the system for others.
In Ohio, she could. No need to even notify her parents let alone gain their consent. That's my point: we aren't all monsters on this side of the Atlantic, even in bright red states like Ohio.
Kansas protected reproductive rights through constitutional referendum. It doesn't get much redder than Kansas.
I don't even think this is Texas or Texans. I think this is Ken Paxton.