Posts
The Supreme Court did not rule that the new abortion law in Texas was Constitutional, they simply refused to issue an emergency stay.
In effect, they are saying that the Pro-Choice side must actually use the legal system and file suits and go through the entire due-process... which might lead to a ruling that Roe-v-Wade still stands.
Second, this law is to allow Karens to report on their neighbors and sue the abortion provider, not a prohibition on the actual post-hearbeat abortion.
Wanna bet that the courts are going to rule that third parties, like Karen, have no standing to sue because they're not an injured party?
Wanna bet?
You know...I'm old enough to remember delivering papers (the Des Moines Tribune) with the news that Roe vs. Wade had been decided. I thought "Well, that settles that." I have seldom or never been more wrong, but in my own defense, I was only 12 years old at the time.
ReplyDeleteThere's a modus vivendi that I think both sides could live with, but both sides are the captives of their uttermost extremists.
I really doubt that the "Heartbeat Bill" will stand for long. Your reasoning is quite good, I think that SCOTUS will hear a proper suit, eventually. I also agree that the argument about third parties not having standing should be a successful challenge to it. There are other challenges, and I can't imagine as flawed as this bill is that one of them won't prevail and RvW will survive.
ReplyDeleteThere is a strong move to limit abortion in this country, and other laws have been allowed to stand; I think eventually one of these heartbeat bills will stand. Will it be this one? I don't know. i do know that it isn't as flawed as some people say and it also isn't as good as some people say.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "settling" abortion, a legal opinion resting on a newly invented right is about as unsettled as possible... The fact that Congress has never passed a law allowing abortion, only laws restricting it, says much about how not settled RvW is.