Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion ban in 5-4 decision

Get upset about imaginary issues like “critical race theory”* being taught to first graders.

*I.e. Not being sufficiently racist in the teaching of history, or just being a Black educator: Texas High School’s First Black Principal Suspended Over Critical Race Theory


Just this week there was criticism going around that no one from the Biden administration showed up when the bodies of the Americans killed in the Kabul bombing were repatriated. Sure, that’s “false” and “can easily be disproven” but by this point I think a lot of people on the right pride themselves on their ability to ignore the truth.


At this point, I’d go so far as to say that defines the right, particularly in the post-Trump era.

The great thing about imaginary issues is there’s an endless supply of them, and you don’t have to have any sort of reasoned arguments against them (and in fact, because they’re imaginary, reasoned arguments by the “other side” become impossible as well).


The orange shit stain of trump will take a very long time to wash out.what we need is some judicial oxyclean.

On second thought, that sounds like a second amendment remedy. Nevermind.

1 Like

No, the Texas law — and the Supreme Court endorsement of it — is about one thing and one thing only: Denying the humanity of women, and, of course, denying the humanity of those who don’t neatly fit in that category of “woman,” but can get pregnant anyway. This is about reducing these people to mere vessels, and rejecting the idea that they are autonomous human beings who have sovereignty over their bodies and their lives. On the contrary, having a uterus renders you as little more than human livestock in the eyes of conservatives.

We see this attitude in the enforcement mechanism of the law.

The law allows any person – even a complete stranger to the person getting an abortion — to sue an abortion provider or any other person who helps with the abortion. The right to control a pregnant person’s body, in this Texas law, belongs quite literally to anyone but the woman herself: Her father, her husband, her ex, her neighbor, some random misogynist who just wants to ruin a life because he spends too much time on incel forums. Just so long as it’s not the person actually living in that body.

This rejection of women as autonomous beings is also baked into the parameters of who can be sued. The abortion bounty hunters are permitted to go after health care providers or any other person who helps a woman get an abortion, but they cannot sue the person who wants an abortion. She is viewed simply as an empty vessel, not as a thinking, feeling person who is making a decision. And so the responsibility for the abortion decision is assumed to belong to another person, because conservatives simply cannot admit that women are capable of making such decisions.


Um, could we get this?

Let’s start with the ability to bring a private suit against anyone who is thought to have violated any of the existing gun control rules that gives a $10K bounty.

You think a gun show isn’t doing background checks? Sue the venue owner.
You think a gun store isn’t doing background checks? Sue the landlord.
You think a cab dropped someone off to go to the store/show? Sue the cab company.

Then, we can expand it to all kinds of new gun control rights. The states not enforcing it, so there’s no second amendment concerns. Just some third party bringing suit for a $10K reward if they believe someone was involved in a gun transaction.



We’d get justice every 4 years instead of never.


Bold move, start with a both-sides lie. Let’s see if it pays off, Cotton.

You know, I really feel like people shouldn’t need uteri to understand this one. Imagine I went to someone and told them:

Hey, we need you for a medical procedure. This stranger here needs you to give them blood every hour for the next few months to live. Of course you'll have to manage what you eat and drink for them, and of course, spend your time carting them around...depending on what you do for a living you may have to stop. And not going to lie, it's going to make you pretty sick, probably have permanent health consequences, and has some very serious risks associated with it. And we can't compensate you, but you'll have the joy of knowing you saved a life. Ready?

I think just about anybody, and definitely any conservative, would think you should have the right to opt out, even knowing what will happen to them. And that’s with it as an actual person, let alone a ball of cells that could be a person someday.

So anyone who doesn’t get this, it’s not because they can’t, it’s because they don’t want to.


I would say they’re downright eager to write laws from the bench. It’s why they went into law.

1 Like


Well not ALL SC cases are constitutional ones. But those are the ones that get the most attention because they are the most important ones. Unlike say, border disputes between states for which the SC is actually the first stop rather than an appellate court.


Which is why I referenced Mr Paul Weyrich upstream.

“For people who don’t know who Paul is, let me play him quick. Let’s let him be heard.”
How many of our Christian voters have what I call the ‘goo goo’ syndrome? Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people.

“Tell us about him. Who was this guy?” Reid asked.

“Who Paul Weyrich was, was a Roman Catholic activist who tried to involve evangelicals in building a right wing coalition based on racism. He wanted to cash in on the hatred that many white evangelicals had for the U.S. government because it was questioning the tax-exempt status of all white academies that were a reaction to integration,” Schaeffer explained.

“And then they turned to the abortion issue as another piece of red meat which to enrage their followers. Now, when we went out to pitch the quote, unquote ‘pro-life movement’ which in fact was was fake family values – thinly veiled misogyny, keep women in their place movement, it wasn’t about abortion. Weyrich and others decided they could take that energy and bring new voters to the Republican party.”


There is no other body that can deal with interstate problems, so, constitutionally, the SC deals with them… :woman_shrugging:

But what do I know…


For the people who are focusing on the legal minutia of this issue rather than the REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES of their fellow human beings losing their human rights…

Nit-pick the “correct” roll of the SC all you want. But maybe at least think about HOW this is going to hurt actual people. Some seem to be losing sight of that very basic fact here. Much like the trans bathroom and sports bans, voting restrictions, and gun proliferation laws, these laws are making this country less free and a worse place to live for many people here.


Seriously. Even if you’re “pro choice” know this: this law is condemning many women to die of ectopic pregnancies and many other conditions this ban on women’s healthcare forbids the treatment of.

It’s simply an assault on women by forbidding them lifesaving healthcare. And that’s the entire goal to republican voters. Nothing else.


Cool points, bro, but how’s your uterus?


Boy, that would get Republicans in a tizzy. Every gun show would be sued out of business. Heck, you could only apply the fine when you proved it, and you’d still put every gun show out of business.

Gun shows are filled with scary people.

“We have a workaround.”


I say we just invade Texas. In the name of freedom against oppression.

And they have oil.