• 52fighters@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    There would be no penalty in this case. The law prohibits enforcement against the mother and activities that take place outside of the state are also not enforceable by Texas. The exception is if someone drives her to the state line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion or gives her money while both are situated in the State of Texas, although interesting would be a case where one is in Texas and the other isn’t, bringing up the interstate commerce clause.

    Texas allows medical exceptions. I have not yet read why this case did not qualify for the exception. Presumably because the court did not agree the mother’s life was at serious risk? Has anyone a good read of the court’s ruling?

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Ken Paxton is a piece of shit. The judge heard the testimony from doctors and decided it should go ahead. Ol’ Ken pushed it to the TSC because he knew they would sit on the case until she had the stillborn birth.

      Republicans want to punish women simply because.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t get Paxton’s play here, lose-lose proposition. Someone put yourself in his shoes and give me one reason this is a smart move.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because it fulfills their goal of revenge against women for rejecting them, having rights, etc.

          And that fulfills the goal of pleasing their bible-thumper and alt-right base, who seek vengeance against women for those and a myriad of other reasons.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a facile reply. Of course his base will love it, most of 'em, but what could he possibly gain by this?

            And let’s not pretend like its Paxton’s personal mission to hate on women. From his point of view, this is pure politics. LOL, like he has some sort of moral code driving him.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why am I supposed to care about your half-wit opinion about my reply? Address the substance of discussion. Don’t waste my time with your ham-fisted attempt to put me down thinking it will get you anywhere.

              This assclown’s mOrAL cOdE is hating on women, to start.

              Now try addressing that, and only that, and leave me out of it if you are capable of that. I know it’s asking a lot

        • WraithGear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only people who consider this a lose lose would not vote for him either way. But it galvanizes his base. Especially when you consider certain people would rather blame the mother. How they justify this blame is the only creativity i have seen from such people.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re hitting at my point. His base is voting for him no matter what, so there’s no political gain here. Not like those people were sitting on the fence, but any who were got pushed right the fuck off his side.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And how well do you suppose the Supreme Court will love him for chunking a clear decision from a lower court? Conservative or liberal, judges want to take cases with at least a semblance of legal nuance.

            The Court recently told Alabama that a lower court’s ruling stands on voting fuckery and just today refused to hear a case regarding “pray the gay away” camps, again upholding a lower ruling to allow the ban.