A recently enacted Texas law that restricts most abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected went into effect on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief requested by Texas abortion providers. As a result, most abortion activity in Texas has come to a halt. Litigation will undoubtedly continue in the days and weeks to come.
This litigation evokes a core principle: The law must protect innocent human lives, including those who are not yet born, and support women facing a challenging or unplanned pregnancy.
Texas Heartbeat Law Is Now in Effect. Here’s What You Need to Know. (dailysignal.com)
When I was a teenager, I enjoyed reading…
View original post 791 more words
Citizen Tom 
Tom,
I linked this post and some of your comments in my post today titled: Viability Abortion Opinions
https://rudymartinka.com/2021/09/11/viability-abortion-opinions-king-solomon-blog/
Regards and goodwill blogging.
If this legislation stands, and I doubt it will in the end….are you concerned as I am, about States with a Democratic monopoly using this as precedent to do likewise with respect to other Constitutional or civil rights?
@Constitutional Insurgent
Democrats have already done this sort of thing.
Where?
@Constitutional Insurgent
Civil right violations. Environmental regulations. Class action law suits. It is one of the reasons so many lawyers are Democrats.
Think about what happened to the tabacco companies.
What is the constitutional right they’ve circumvented here?
As ruled by SCOTUS in 1973, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
If it is a question of due process, do due process rights stop during the second trimester? The 1973 SCOTUS ruling allows states authority to forbid elective abortion sometime after the first trimester.
The date is obviously very arbitrary and even in 1973 SCOTUS recognized this. Also, state civil court and criminal court are different entities as determined by SCOTUS evolution of the OJ Simpson trial.
You’ll have to take that up with SCOTUS.
@@Constitutional Insurgent
No. I just have to pray and vote for Conservatives.
What is legal is not the same thing as what is true and what is moral. We can try to make our laws just, but so long as our Laws are based upon the whims of men we won’t even com close. People will just make things up or do what you just did, pass the buck.
Believe in whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.
@Constitutional Insurgent
That is not true. No man is a island.
Why would you think that your religious belief is of any concern to me? Legislation passed along such lines that do not also have secular value certainly is…..but not Citizen Tom’s personal faith.
@Constitutional Insurgent
We base our laws upon what we each believe to be right and wrong. That is a matter personal belief. What lawmakers do is negotiate our differences in belief.
Our laws are also based on precedent, thus my concern.
@Constitutional Insurgent
Unless you are prepared to defend Roe V Wade, you still cannot say what precedent — what right — you are trying to defend.
You really don’t get it, do you. Sorry for that.
@Constitutional Insurgent
Well, if you could explain your position, you would not have to be so sorry.
It’s already been explained. Thanks for your time.
You did invoke the SCOTUS decision in your explanation. It doesn’t sound like you understand what that decision was.
You asked a question – I answered. You just don’t seem to agree with it. Your choice, but that doesn’t change facts.
@Constitutional Insurgent
Your concerns are entirely too vague to be understood. Are we supposed to read between the lines and guess. Then I suppose we are supposed to praise you for your clarity and erudition. You looking for job as a spokesman in the Biden administration?
@Constitutional Insurgent
There was a reason I didn’t bother to ask Liz’s question. Trying to get the ProChoice crowd to admit the obvious, that there is no such right in the Constitution is pointless. Nevertheless, Liberals go ape when a Conservative president starts appointing Supreme Court judges. They know Roe v Wade is nonsense.
I don’t consider myself pro-choice necessarily, it’s not my hill to die on. I’m concerned about the precedent this legislation sets, if allowed to stand.
Hopefully the democrats move out of Texas as a result of this.
@thelindproject
Just so long as more of don’t come to Virginia.
Tom.
Thanks for the link and adding your comments and prespective to this issue. I agree the Supreme Court never should have ruled or heard this issue. It was foolish vanity for them to believe they had greater wisdom than our Creator, in my opinion.
Sad.
Regards and goodwill blogging.