6 ms·

The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from T

The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold.

otterley 5y ago
If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).
- rescripting 5y ago
  I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.
  - babesh 5y ago
    The country is going through an increasing blue/red divide. It is working both ways. Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period? Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
    - locopati 5y ago
      Do you mean one side is trying to extend rights to more people and one side is trying to take them away from those people (often with threats of violence)?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power. There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics. The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
- madengr 5y ago
  Maybe they can overturn gun laws in the process, as they are also unconstitutional.
- Jasper_ 5y ago
  But the Supreme Court pretty much already declined to hear the case, in a 5-4 decision. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas-scotus-order-sb8-21a24.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas...
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    That was a "no standing" ruling -- they can't enjoin the Attorney General of Texas because he doesn't enforce the abortion rule. Once there is a case with standing, it'll bubble up to the supreme court.
  - otterley 5y ago
    They didn't decline to hear the case on substantive grounds (i.e., on the merits). They declined to hear an emergency appeal to stay the law on procedural grounds. So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.
- nvahalik 5y ago
  > the law is plainly unconstitutional Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional? Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid. The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States. The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      This particular SC might have a bigger interest in banning abortion though, all else be damned.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US. There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law. The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.
  - nathanwh 5y ago
    This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973
- megaman821 5y ago
  I am kinda interested on what happens if they let it stand. If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion, what kind of fun will we get when this legal theory gets applied to gun laws?
  - enraged_camel 5y ago
    >> If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion This is already happening btw: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057 https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057
analogdreams 5y ago
...part of me thinks the blue side of the aisle welcomes this law and will use it to change the states colour in the next election cycles.
brighton36 5y ago
Exactly. I'd vote to make abortion illegal for this purpose, and I'd bet many citizens of the state feel similarly.
Negitivefrags 5y ago
I have seen the exact opposite conspiracy theory proposed. That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.
- ohashi 5y ago
  This is probably similar to that theory that democrats made covid vaccine political to kill republican voters because they wouldn't take it out of hate for democrats. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment and lie. Somehow, no matter what happens, they are always the victim and being persecuted - even when they are imposing their will on others.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
breckenedge 5y ago
Yea, it’s a signal that works both ways. I’ve met a handful of new arrivals from New York and California who want to get to Texas because it’s a red state (and there’s a perception that homes are cheap). Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.
conductr 5y ago
That’s exactly what it is. And lots of posturing. But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works. There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.
someguydave 5y ago
Why is it so bad for states to make their own laws about abortion?
missinfo 5y ago
That was my first thought too. But then doesn't that logic also apply to any state that passes laws its minority party doesn't like? California has experienced red flight due to their laws.
maccolgan 5y ago
>this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...

otterley 5y ago

If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).

rescripting 5y ago
I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.
- babesh 5y ago
  The country is going through an increasing blue/red divide. It is working both ways. Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period? Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
  - locopati 5y ago
    Do you mean one side is trying to extend rights to more people and one side is trying to take them away from those people (often with threats of violence)?
- otterley 5y ago
  Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power. There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics. The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
madengr 5y ago
Maybe they can overturn gun laws in the process, as they are also unconstitutional.
Jasper_ 5y ago
But the Supreme Court pretty much already declined to hear the case, in a 5-4 decision. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas-scotus-order-sb8-21a24.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas...
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  That was a "no standing" ruling -- they can't enjoin the Attorney General of Texas because he doesn't enforce the abortion rule. Once there is a case with standing, it'll bubble up to the supreme court.
- otterley 5y ago
  They didn't decline to hear the case on substantive grounds (i.e., on the merits). They declined to hear an emergency appeal to stay the law on procedural grounds. So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.
nvahalik 5y ago
> the law is plainly unconstitutional Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional? Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid. The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States. The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    This particular SC might have a bigger interest in banning abortion though, all else be damned.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US. There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law. The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.
- nathanwh 5y ago
  This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973
megaman821 5y ago
I am kinda interested on what happens if they let it stand. If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion, what kind of fun will we get when this legal theory gets applied to gun laws?
- enraged_camel 5y ago
  >> If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion This is already happening btw: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057 https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057

analogdreams 5y ago

...part of me thinks the blue side of the aisle welcomes this law and will use it to change the states colour in the next election cycles.

brighton36 5y ago

Exactly. I'd vote to make abortion illegal for this purpose, and I'd bet many citizens of the state feel similarly.

Negitivefrags 5y ago

I have seen the exact opposite conspiracy theory proposed. That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.

ohashi 5y ago
This is probably similar to that theory that democrats made covid vaccine political to kill republican voters because they wouldn't take it out of hate for democrats. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment and lie. Somehow, no matter what happens, they are always the victim and being persecuted - even when they are imposing their will on others.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

breckenedge 5y ago

Yea, it’s a signal that works both ways. I’ve met a handful of new arrivals from New York and California who want to get to Texas because it’s a red state (and there’s a perception that homes are cheap). Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.

conductr 5y ago

That’s exactly what it is. And lots of posturing. But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works. There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.

someguydave 5y ago

Why is it so bad for states to make their own laws about abortion?

missinfo 5y ago

That was my first thought too. But then doesn't that logic also apply to any state that passes laws its minority party doesn't like? California has experienced red flight due to their laws.

maccolgan 5y ago

>this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...