this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
200 points (98.1% liked)

News

23423 readers
4387 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava
rjc
Thekingoflorda
Tenthrow
gedaliyah
little_cow
jeffw
enu
200
Fight over Texas anti-abortion transport bans reaches biggest battlegrounds yet (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave to c/news
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Two Texas jurisdictions will consider measures this week to outlaw the act of transporting another person along their roads for an abortion, part of a strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Commissioners in Lubbock County are slated to vote on the proposal on Monday. A few hours north, the Amarillo City Council on Tuesday will weigh its own such law, which could lead to a future council or city-wide vote.

Lubbock and Amarillo are the biggest jurisdictions of the 10 places in Texas that have considered restrictions on abortion-related transportation since the June 2022 end of Roe, which had granted a nationwide right to abortion. Five cities and counties in the state have passed bans.

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Got_Bent 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There was a much smaller town, I believe more in East Texas, that brought such an ordinance up. I was pleasantly shocked that they eventually came to the conclusion that their proposed "papers please" environment was a wee bit too much like what many of their older residents had fought against.

Sadly, I'm not confident that clearer minds will continue to prevail.

Further, as I type this, I'm in an airport in Dallas headed to Nevada where I'm going to gamble, have sex out of wedlock, consume cannabis, and potentially purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage between the hours of two and seven in the morning. Somehow, no Texas legislator has any interest in prohibiting my endeavors. Seems inconsistent.

[–] dhork 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Somehow, no Texas legislator has any interest in prohibiting my endeavors. Seems inconsistent.

Were you born male, and do you still identify as such? That might have something to do with it.

[–] captainlezbian 11 points 1 year ago

Exactly their gender hierarchy is simple: cis men having full freedom and protection, cis women having protection as provided by a cis man, everyone else’s existence threatens the legitimacy of this system and must be forced into one of the boxes with violence if needed

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm betting the gambling prohibition will fall in Texas in the next 10 years. Same in other states that ban it. There is just way too much money going to their immediate neighbors for the politicians to not get greedy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doubtful. They still have dry counties for fucks sake

[–] CADmonkey 3 points 1 year ago

And of course, marijuana is still illegal, even though it's making money for the much less populated state to the north.

[–] Got_Bent 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very few of those remain. It was rough when I got here twenty years ago.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I used to work terrible wrecks at the liquor store on the edge just outside of a dry county.

[–] dhork 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The real problem is this notion that these abortion bans are enforced through private lawsuits, and not by actual law enforcement. The law was crafted this way on purpose, to evade judicial review: you can't sue the State over its enforcement if the state doesn't enforce it. The article even quotes someone pointing out that all this does is get localities involved in private lawsuits.

Conservatives are super afraid of the Government intruding on people's lives but have no problem at all empowering nosy neighbors to do it.

As an experiment, a Liberal city with strict gun laws ought to pass similar laws empowering nosy neighbors to sue people they suspect of harboring illegal firearms, and Transporting them across state lines. It may be the only way to get this Conservative Supreme Court to address this practice.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Conservatives are super afraid of the Government intruding on people's lives but have no problem at all empowering nosy neighbors to do it.

More specifically, they have no problem with the government empowering itself to act on behalf of a specific faction of nosy neighbors by rendering judgments and using the power of the state to enforce them in a way that's functionally equivalent to treating those neighbors as witnesses to a crime.

If the Supreme Court was a judicial body and not an instrument of the Republican party, they would have stuck down the Texas law as an obvious "fuck you" to judicial authority based entirely on playing dumb about what RvW allows. But it turns out they didn't care because they were already planning on overturning RvW anyway, along with concepts like standing and precedent.

God I hate them so much.

[–] Ultraviolet 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just unconstitutional, it's legally nonsensical. Citizens of a state are not the property of the state, a state only has jurisdiction over what people do inside the state itself.

[–] CylonBunny 1 points 1 year ago

And yet the US federal government taxes income earned outside of the US.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i am confused how the feds cant now also dig up the bastardized, dead horse that is the commerce clause and use it against TX here.

or how the fuck does your legal intent in another jurisdiction makes you a prisoner of the current one?

[–] Madison420 16 points 1 year ago

It very specifically doesn't. The federal government regulates interstate commerce, pretty literally all of their intended power is derived by controlling the economy and holding an army.

[–] dogslayeggs 26 points 1 year ago

I really feel like politicians should be held financially liable for the legal costs of defending obviously unconstitutional laws like this. I mean, it's so unbelievably unconstitutional that no serious judge would allow it to stand in a legal challenge. That makes this a waste of taxpayer money when it inevitably goes to judicial challenge.

[–] Paddzr 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but does this say: Texas can't stop you from having an abortion, so they'll make it illegal for someone to transport you there?

[–] Fredselfish 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is illegal for any city or fucking state from keeping you from driving to another state or city no matter the purpose. Fuck these cities and fuck the federal government for not intervening and putting a stop to this bullshit.

This is kind of bs you see in North Korea or some communist hell hole like China. But Republicans and their voters are to stupid to see that.

I hope the voters in both cities remove the city council members from office over this by force if need be. This is plan old fascism and needs to be stomped out now.

[–] cedarmesa 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

💀

[–] Fredselfish 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yes but they different type of argument. That to was bullshit and illegal but even though I think boarders are all bs it is illegal to cross into another country without a passport or visa.

But stopping Women from going from one state to another when they are pregnant ( and lets be truthful here) even if not pregnant is totally unconstitutional and If the federal government doesn't sue and put a halt to these supposed laws then we as a country are done and time for a revolution.

[–] cedarmesa 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

💀

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 1 year ago

The problem is that they’re ok with it. The walls are to keep people where they belong, some out, others in.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dipshit 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m a dipshit and even I know this is one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well in the state of Texas, once the idea is conceived, you have to carry it to term.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Then you give it a gun and see what happens.

[–] dipshit 1 points 1 year ago

So much for the marketplace of ideas.

[–] sygnius 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So Texas is saying it's illegal to transport people to another state if it's for an abortion, but it's encouraged to transport immigrants to another state if they're undocumented?

What if it's an undocumented immigrant that wants an abortion?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Making it illegal for women to travel is simply called Freedom LIBTARDS!