Texas Republicans ban women from using highways for abortion appointments
www.newsweek.com
Lubbock County, Texas, becomes the next county to pass legislation banning women from using their roads to seek abortions.

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday’s meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a “Sanctuary County for the Unborn.”

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas’ existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      So in principle, if you get sued over this by an abusive spouse, he could:

      • Never tell you

      • Hide the mail

      • Show up to court that day and you don’t

      • Cackle maniacally as the judge signs a bench warrant for his victim’s arrest she doesn’t know about

      • He now can get her thrown in jail whenever she acts up, e.g. runs away or fights back

      • The legal system is now his personal army

      And we pretend that democracy, rule of law and the legal system is supposed to be capable of protecting innocent people from abusers and preventing tyranny. We pretend it was ever even able to, let alone willing.

      We obviously need something better.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          No means yes and yes means harder.

          Abusers will just lie and tell the judge they gave notice and the courts never listen when defendants claim they never got any. It’s always assumed to be a lie, hence bench warrants.

          Or just threaten her or otherwise stop her from showing up. Bonus points if he slips opiates into her drink, she passes out and misses the court date, and he then accuses her of being a drug addict.

          You really don’t know anything about how abuse works if you’re seriously questioning this.

    • KelsonV@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      “the private enforcement mechanism” – which is essentially an end run around restrictions on what the government is technically not allowed to do itself, by heavily implying that they want something done instead of explicitly hiring someone to do it. “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

      • nybble41@programming.dev
        1·
        1 year ago

        Except it’s not even that indirect. The government of Texas invented this novel class of private liability, and their courts are the ones enforcing it. That’s the same as banning it themselves, and blatantly unconstitutional.

        I’m a bit surprised they didn’t implement this as a tax. That would be just as bad, but the federal government has a long history of imposing punitive taxes on things they aren’t allowed to ban; it would have been harder to fight it that way without forcing an overhaul of the entire tax system… and politicians are so very fond of special-purpose taxes and credits.