Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments
Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Everything else aside, that's about as clear a violation of the Commerce Clause as you can get.
The inability of states to regulate interstate commerce was settled by the courts in 1824.
The same laws that allows firearms to be shipped through states where they're illegal protects abortion-seekers on Texas roads
was settled by the courts in 1824.
Nothing is "settled" with the current Supreme Court.
Commerce Clause is about as settled as it can get, though. Especially with a Court so enamoured with Founders Intent. Gibbons v Ogden is probably only behind Marbury v Madison in sacred status to this Court.
It's cute that you still have faith in conservatives doing anything consistently
Overturning Gibbons would do more harm to the conservative cause than good.
The entire West Coast is liberal-controlled states. They could legally tax or simply cut off any goods or services bound for conservative states originating from or passing through their states.
All to defend a law that's essentially unenforceable from a practical standpoint.
Again, you're assuming conservatives have any sort of consistency or logic. They'll just make up some BS that keeps things moving the way they want.
Even they have limits they won't pass because it would blow everything up.
I remember when I was this naive
I remember when people had nice conversations on the internet that didn't involve unnecessary one-line insults.
Maybe instead of being insulted by being aware of your incorrect beliefs you could educate yourself? Just a thought.
"Sorry, but after the gutting of Roe, stare decisis only applies to things conservatives and/or billionaire overlords approve of" -- SCOTUS
Conservatives and billionaires absolutely approve of the Commerce Clause.
Overturning Gibbons would allow California to tax all internet traffic coming through LA from the rest of the world, or allow liberal states to seize high-capacity magazines being shipped across state lines.
Imagine Facebook having to pay import/export taxes every time someone accessed their account.
It would be the most impactful SCOTUS decision of all time, and would be absolutely ruinous to the business interests of the wealthy.
Stare decisis has only ever applied to things the justices approve of. It's just that this may be the most fucked up group we've ever had. If all the former judges were also lovers of stare decisis, most of our civil rights would not be here, because many of those have been when previous judgements were overturned. Just think about the segregation of schools. Was Brown v The Board of Education not a reversal of Plessy v Ferguson?
The concept has always been about a bullshit homage that lawyers and judges dance around.
SCOTUS allowed the abortion bounty law SB8 to stand before Roe was overturned. It was clearly unconstitutional. So, they're just expanding on it to the next logical steps.
Something something it's not commerce because reasons.
Nevermind that the Commerce Clause has been cited to give the federal government authority to prohibit activities that are neither commerce nor inter-state, such as growing cannabis for personal use on your own property.
Schroedinger's commerce. It's commerce only when it's convenient for prohibitionists.
The federal government doesn't outlaw abortion, so they can't use the Commerce Clause to enforce abortion restrictions enacted by the states.
However, the issues you cite with them being bullies with the commerce clause are centered on authority granted through Gibbons.
Gibbons was specifically about states trying to enforce laws (specifically state-granted steamboat monopolies) within their borders that had a direct impact on commerce within another state. The Supreme Court declared that a violation of the commerce clause because only the Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce.
Texas passing laws prohibiting travel to another state to seek abortions (which are federally legal) could only be allowed by SCOTUS by overturning Gibbons, which would be absolutely devastating.
That would be by far the most-impactful reversal in the Court's history, and it can't be overstated how much of a grenade it would be. Everybody would lose, and the GOP's owners more than anyone else.
If SCOTUS were insistent (and consistent) that only the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet this Texas jurisdiction is trying to do just that, wouldn't that logically be in violation of the Commerce Clause and SCOTUS would have to strike down?
I was arguing that SCOTUS isn't consistent on this, but pretend they were.
They'd have trouble ignoring this one. This is isn't tangentially related to interstate commerce.
The law is explicitly about preventing people from passing through a territory to engage in legal commerce in another state. Violation of the Commerce Clause isn't a byproduct of the law - it's the sole intent.
IANAL: how exactly is this going to get overturned? The courts have already gotten rid of offender observer standing so the only way would be if this is actually enforced at which point the Supreme Court could simply allow the appeals court ruling stand.