Breaking News: Biden administration plans
to Sue Texas over new law banning
abortions after six weeks
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Keith Griffith
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
9/8/2021 10:19:56 PM
The Biden administration is reportedly planning to sue the state of Texas over a new law that bans most abortions.
The Justice Department could file the lawsuit as soon as Thursday, two sources familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal.
The law that took effect last week exposes abortion providers to financial penalties if they terminate pregnancies once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually at around six weeks. It is the strictest abortion law in the country, and has drawn furious backlash from pro-abortion groups after surviving a Supreme Court challenge.
The DOJ is expected to argue in it suit that the Texas law illegally interferes with federal interests
Reply 1 - Posted by:
stablemoney 9/8/2021 10:22:20 PM (No. 908348)
Take the abortion clinics to Delaware.
10 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Blackbird 9/8/2021 10:27:15 PM (No. 908355)
Gotta stop them little hearts from beating.
12 people like this.
They'll need to go all out on this one. If the DOJ loses, then there will be many states to follow.
16 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
snakeoil 9/8/2021 10:43:33 PM (No. 908369)
The Tenth Amendment clearly states that since abortion isn't mentioned in The Constitution that it's up to the states. If only the libs could read.
22 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
tsquare 9/8/2021 10:59:29 PM (No. 908377)
Biden admin has no standing
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Northcross 9/8/2021 11:07:15 PM (No. 908379)
The most energizing issue for leftists is the "right" to infanticide. That should tell you something.
16 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
red1066 9/8/2021 11:08:04 PM (No. 908380)
Good luck. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of Texas.
7 people like this.
SCOTUS left it alone...what standing does the US Government have in this?
8 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
columba 9/8/2021 11:35:05 PM (No. 908404)
Thou shalt not murder.
If we continue with legal murder of unborn persons, our nation is over.
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Nimby 9/8/2021 11:35:29 PM (No. 908405)
Go for it sicko! You cannot do a single job without messing it upand you go after a state that is really supporting the unborn
8 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
davew 9/8/2021 11:38:37 PM (No. 908408)
The SCOTUS did not review the Heartbeat Bill on its merits and stated that their decision in no way blocked future actions by defendants in specific cases. The problem I can see with this bill is that it sets up a civil tort between third party plaintiffs who were not specifically damaged by the doctor's performance of the abortion.
Normally civil torts are about restitution of some harm that was done by one party to another party who both participated in the action. This can also be a class of parties who share in the restitution usually from a very wealthy defendant. Third parties may claim that they speak for the harm to the unborn child but that would be hard for any court to accept even if it was favorable to the pro-life position. The Heartbeat Bill essentially creates a bounty on physicians but unlike real bounties the objective is not to bring someone to justice but is justice itself. Also, if a physician is sued because they performed a late term abortion and testifies that they did not actually hear a fetal heartbeat the court has no other means to prove he's lying. Its a classic he-said-she-said deadlock from a judges standpoint.
The fact that a DA doesn't bring the charges on behalf of the plaintiffs doesn't mean that the legal power of the state to enforce the decision will not be required. Somebody will have to collect the penalty on behalf of the plaintiffs. If the physician refuses to pay the state would have to step in and revoke their license to practice which could be challenged as an unconstitutional restriction on a woman's access to the procedure.
There's just a lot of uncharted legal territory to cover with this bill and despite all the hype in the media I don't believe it will have the effect that the pro-life advocates are looking for. Doctor's may just ignore it and judges would not hear the cases due to lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs.
The only real solution is the restoration of the rights of states to make laws not reserved for the Federal government. This is still the flaw that Roe v. Wade created and that must be adjudicated.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Miceal 9/8/2021 11:44:00 PM (No. 908413)
I might be wrong, but I don't think Roe V Wade had anything to do with abortions and everything to do with a right to privacy. However, that isn't covered in our Constitution either...
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 9/8/2021 11:50:18 PM (No. 908420)
Did this law make any allowances for the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest?
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
PChristopher 9/8/2021 11:53:51 PM (No. 908423)
The media keeps hammering this six-week point... it's not six weeks... abortion is prohibited once a heartbeat is detected, which is at about six weeks! There IS a difference!
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 9/9/2021 12:32:20 AM (No. 908437)
Daily Mail, a so-called media, should read the papers! There is no such entity as the ''Biden administration.'' It is more properly called Obama 3.1. Aborting unborn Americans who might possibly vote one day and uploading the certain Democrat party voters from south of what used to be the border.
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
ironchefw 9/9/2021 12:41:04 AM (No. 908442)
I used to always think that this fight was over the babies. How wrong I was. Reslly over the ghouls who kill the babies and donate to the Dems.
1 person likes this.
On what basis? Abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right. Go ahead and try - you will be forcing the hand of the courts, and I think there are probably 5 judges on SCOTUS eager to break it off in Xiden. A 10th Amendment case is just what the doctor ordered.
I don't think DoJ has thought this through. Turley was warning against this tactic the other day.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
SALady 9/9/2021 1:00:56 AM (No. 908448)
This law does not stop a single Texas woman from slaughtering her unborn baby in abortion if she choses to. She just won't be able to spill that innocent blood on Texas soil.
Yes, instead of driving to San Antonio, Houston, or Dallas, she will have to drive to New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Louisiana. A little more inconvenient? Sure. But I have no problem with a woman who wants to kill her own baby to be a little inconvenienced. Maybe she will have time to think during the drive or ride and realize what a horrible and evil thing she is about to do, and turn around and go home.
And in case anyone thinks "oh, that's not fair to make her drive so far" to slaughter her unborn baby, there are plenty of "health services" that are not available in every city and town, where you have to drive to a big city, or even another state, to get.
2 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
LaVallette 9/9/2021 6:43:39 AM (No. 908571)
"The DOJ is expected to argue in it suit that the Texas law illegally interferes with federal interests "
The DOJ should be careful about what it is SEEKING. ON and issue of conflict between State and Federal interests, the SCOTUS could easily come to the conclusion that the best way to resolve the issue would be to bite the bullet and declare the US Constitutional Right to Abortion as Null and Void ab initio. IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE US CONStITUION.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)