Some Democrat state should make an equivalent law regarding buying guns or registering as a Republican and see if the Supreme Court will make the same decision. — Michael

Some Republican state like Texas should pass a law prohibiting abortion and the Court could rule that abortion is a protected right under the Constitution and they could call that case Roe v. Wade. That'll teach em.

The other being that I take the pro-life folks at their word that their concern is over fetal rights and not a desire to subjugate women. — Hanover

Nah, this kinda stuff has nothing to do with the life of children. It's just punishment for women who have sex. That's it. It's pretty straightforward misogyny. Anyone who thinks these people have any concern for children has not looked paid any attention to how they treat children. Except "I fucking hate women and hope they are miserable forever if they enjoy themselves even slightly" is a harder sell than "I like unborn children".

This isn't correct on a couple of levels, the first being that life for a woman in Afghanistan bears little resemblance for life as a woman in the US, with likely 0% of the US women wishing Taliban policies would be instituted in the US upon them. — Hanover

Also of course this is entirely untrue. Or at least, you just need to substitute one woman hating religion for another. Everything else is cosmetic.

More from the Guardian:

Many states have enacted similar laws, which have been blocked. But this one is especially egregious.

It has used the architecture of the state to promote the rule of the mob. It prohibits officials from enforcing it, instead deputising ordinary citizens to sue anyone for suspected violations. While designed this way to make legal challenges harder, it is part of the broader turn of Trump Republicans towards vigilantism and away from democratic institutions. By promising a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues successfully, it encourages the greedy as well as vindictive ex-partners and zealots to act...

This law, like the wider anti-abortion drive, hurts women’s freedom, their health and even their lives.

It has been achieved through the relentless efforts of activists who are not merely egging on but also funding others around the world.

Meeting and defeating these challenges will require an equally committed, comprehensive and ambitious campaign. The opponents of women’s freedom will not stop. Defenders cannot either. This law will galvanise them. — The Guardian

Vigilantism. Away from democracy.
How to stop a world-wide wrecking ball ?
This law might galvanise some. However, it's not just about women's freedom.
The domino effect is scary in its speed to topple rights not just in America.

***

In the UK, after the Supreme Court decided that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful * , the Tories sought revenge and change. Not sure the current state of play but I seem to recall the desire was to follow the American model.

( * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy )

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/15/supreme-court-plans-an-attack-on-independent-judicary-says-labour

The story said Tory peers had warned about the dangers of “judicial activism”, and the justice secretary, Robert Buckland QC, was believed to be drawing up plans for reform.

In response, David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, said: “The Conservative government is determined to do all it can to take power away from the courts and hoard it in No 10. This is an attack not only on judges but on the British public, who rely on an independent judiciary to uphold the law. We cannot trust this chronically incompetent government with any more power than it already has.”
— The Guardian

The mindset, models and methods of Republicans and Tories - seem to be overpowering and gaining momentum.

This is just the start.
Voter suppression. The stilling of voices. Will it work again ?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/04/millions-in-uk-face-disenfranchisement-under-voter-id-plans

It's not unusual for a statute to provide for an award of attorney's fees to a successful litigant in what are normal laws in which private citizens have been given a right to sue as "private attorney generals."

But this law can fairly be characterized as a grotesque parody of such laws, cynically adopted to grant standing to sue where it normally wouldn't exist, imposing a statutory minimum for damages to be awarded (more a fine or forfeiture than actual damages, which would have to be proved), and hamstringing the possibility of a defense if not precluding one ab initio.

There's something loathsome about this law; something disturbing about its contrivance.

Nah, this kinda stuff has nothing to do with the life of children. It's just punishment for women who have sex. That's it. It's pretty straightforward misogyny. Anyone who thinks these people have any concern for children has not looked paid any attention to how they treat children. Except "I fucking hate women and hope they are miserable forever if they enjoy themselves even slightly" is a harder sell than "I like unborn children". — StreetlightX

That's not what the people say who oppose abortion, so you've psychoanalyzed them all, including the women who hold that position and determined them all liars?

This is a really weak position you've taken, which is to dismiss the arguments as lies and refuse to consider them on the merits. I can say that I would object to an abortion at 8 months. Do I hate women?

Also of course this is entirely untrue. Or at least, you just need to substitute one woman hating religion for another. Everything else is cosmetic. — StreetlightX

You're now submitting that life for women in the US is as oppressive as it is soon to be under Taliban rule. This is just empirically false, so I don't see this as even ripe for philosophical debate.

That's not what the people say who oppose abortion, so you've psychoanalyzed them all, including the women who hold that position and determined them all liars? — Hanover

No, because only morons take these people at their word when you can simply look at what they do. The faux 'how could you!' tone of your post is hilarious. It's like asking Nazis if they want to exterminate Jews and then being shocked that someone isn't taking them at their word when they say no. The only idiot is the person who is shocked. You don't need psychoanalysis. Just eyes. These people hate women, and pleasure'd-up, independent women most of all.

The onus is really on those who want to take them seriously. Demonstrate what support and measures they take to support children and women. Good luck finding anything other than punitive measures. The 'they care about children' sthick is simply a lie, believed only by the most stupid.

Did anyone demand that the Taliban be psychoanalyzed when they said they'd turned over a new leaf? No. Why? Because you'd have to be a fucking dipshit to believe them. As is anyone who think American ISIS care about children.

The Supremes should be able to get fired like everyone else.

What a terrible post.

Not my fault that you take these Mullahs of American Christianity seriously.

Also maybe Americans will come to realize the supreme court as an institution is a vile, anti-democratic house of shit, no matter who sits on it, — StreetlightX

A bridle and bit for that mouth. Not because it's altogether wrong, but because it makes itself meaningless and irrelevant. Or, just what is your problem?

That's it. It's pretty straightforward misogyny. Anyone who thinks these people have any concern for children has not looked paid any attention to how they treat children. — StreetlightX

This, however, seems right on.

I mean fuck me, we're talking about Texas which is sending their children into gas chamber classrooms. These people are supposed to care about children? Nope, just immiserating women.

Not my fault that you take these Mullahs of American Christianity seriously. — StreetlightX

It's just a worthless ad hom argument. Even if the ad hom attacks were correct it would have no bearing on whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion.

But to the extent you wish your ad homs to be taken seriously, no, there is nothing similar with those who oppose abortion and those who systematically attempted to eradicate the Jews. I don't follow why you ridicule Mullahs, but maybe it's just to engage in a rant against every religion you can think of.

But, as I said before, exceptionally poor posting.

whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion. — Hanover

There is no debate about regulating abortion, and especially not in the US, a fundamentalist regime of extremism and misogyny. Abortion is irrelevant to these people. The only relevant debate is how much these people want to punish women for being independent and pleasure-seeking. Again, the onus is on anyone who wants to take these people at their word. They care about children? Prove it. Because every action of theirs has one effective result only: to punish women. Prove otherwise.

There is no debate about regulating abortion, and especially not in the US. Abortion is irrelevant to these people. The only relevant debate is how much these people want to punish women for being independent and pleasure-seeking. Again, the onus is on anyone who wants to take these people at their word. They care about children? Prove it. Because every action of theirs has one goal only: to punish women. Prove otherwise. — StreetlightX

It's irrelevant if their objective is to punish women or if they are the most honorable among us. Either there is a sound basis for regulating abortion under a trimester basis or not, regardless of who says it.

It's irrelevant if their objective is to punish women or if they are the most honorable among us — Hanover

It certainly isn't irrelevant to the women whose lives are continually ruined by these laws. But sure, treat it as a cute little academic debate while taking the word of fundamentalist misogynists for granted.

:100: I can understand attorney fees, but court fees and costs should be within the sole province of the courts. Maybe they let the legislature tell them how to administer themselves.

Same people, different costume:

It certainly isn't irrelevant to the women whose lives are continually ruined by these laws. But sure, treat it as a cute little academic debate while taking the word of fundamentalist misogynists for granted. — StreetlightX

It is certainly irrelevant to this discussion, and I will continue to treat this as philosophical debate, as I'd have hoped you would have.

Flame much?

Yes, the philosophy of power and domination and its exercise upon the bodies and freedoms of women. Which is what this is about.

Flame much? — Hanover

Why do you think it's a flame? Sorry that the white people get a pass from you.

But you're right it's probably not fair to compare the Taliban to a room of ruthless motherfuckers like the Texas legislature. Who sic bounty hunters who can self-deputize upon women who are made to fear every living person they see in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

And, given the composition of the court, that such decisions are likely to be repeated whenever a law that is constitutionally questionable but politically or socially agreeable to the Justices is before them. — Ciceronianus

Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge. — Horace Mann

It would be wrong for the pro-life movement to ban abortions if they knew souls didn't exist and it would also be wrong for the pro-choice camp to make abortion legal if they knew there were souls. Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself.

But this law can fairly be characterized as a grotesque parody of such laws, cynically adopted to grant standing to sue where it normally wouldn't exist, imposing a statutory minimum for damages to be awarded (more a fine or forfeiture than actual damages, which would have to be proved), and hamstringing the possibility of a defense if not precluding one ab initio.

There's something loathsome about this law; something disturbing about its contrivance. — Ciceronianus

Agreed. Loathsome and disturbing but how was it contrived, allowed to pass - what was the process ?

Kristin Ford, acting vice-president of communications and research at the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (Naral) Pro-Choice America advocacy group, condemned the way the six states scrambled to consider the legislation with such urgency after the Texas law went into effect...

Ford said this was a product of increasingly radicalized rightwing rhetoric. — The Guardian - Republicans in 6 states rush to imitate

So, where is the counter-balance ?
The domino effect happening...at speed.

Within a day of the law going into effect, six other states – North Dakota, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota and Arkansas – have said they are looking to adopt a similar ban, according to numerous reports.

An Arkansas abortion rights advocate told the Guardian on Friday she was prepared to fight such a law if it were to happen in the state.

“Legislation that mirrors Texas’s new law will harm pregnant Arkansans in need of abortions and we will not stand for it,” said Ali Taylor, co-founder and president of the Arkansas Abortion Support Network. “The fight is far from over.”

She added that if such legislation were to be passed, her organization would continue providing access to legal abortion for their clients.

“This will include helping people access abortion in Arkansas before six weeks and helping people go out of state when they are past the [legislative] gestation limit,” she said. “We will not be intimidated.”
... — As above

Good to see some fight back. But serious work needs to be done to address the system, doesn't it ?
See Criticism of the Supreme Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Criticism

Just one example:

Lifetime tenure
Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day." Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity. James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times." Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson and Sabato as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein — Wiki - the Supreme Court of the US

They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself. — TheMadFool

primum non nocere. No excuse for violating this. Part of the argument in Roe is that the unborn have lots of rights, but that require live birth to perfect. As to souls, no appeals to the supernatural, unless all appeals to all supernatural allowed - else how do you choose?

I invite any and all to read Roe v. Wade and to present here what they think are any failures in that law so far as reason shows - unreason disallowed. I think it's a pretty good law. And if any think they have better, let them present it, and absent which, let them be silent and comply.

:ok: :up:

Should we even believe your claims to care about the women of Texas? Or should we look at what you do? Which is what exactly?

Maybe you can explain to us what you yelling at @Hanover from the other side of the world does to help the women of Texas.

Even if the ad hom attacks were correct it would have no bearing on whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion. — Hanover

This isn't what this law is though. This law allows random citizens to sue someone $10,000 for driving a woman to an abortion clinic, and doesn't reimburse defendants for their legal fees even if they win the case.

Maybe you can explain to us what you yelling at Hanover from the other side of the world does to help the women of Texas. — Srap Tasmaner

But it's not just the two of them at each other across the divide, is it ?
This heated argument divides others as per extremism.
It continues the distraction from the core problem.
As I see it, the setting of a worrying legal precedent.
Eyes are taken off the ball.
Attention needs to be paid as per @Ciceronianus''s concerns.

I think it should be characterized as craven by anyone, regardless of their feelings on abortion. And, given the composition of the court, that such decisions are likely to be repeated whenever a law that is constitutionally questionable but politically or socially agreeable to the Justices is before them. — Ciceronianus

No I don't think that's the case. The defendant can't obtain reimbursement for the defendant's costs and fees if the defendant manages to prevail, though. — Ciceronianus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/30/abortion-law-federal-court-decision-texas

In addition to a $10,000 penalty, SB8 would saddle violators of the law with their opponents’ attorneys fees. It provides no such relief for defendants, even if they win.

Maybe you can explain to us what you yelling at Hanover — Srap Tasmaner

Hey Hano was the one who got mad at me for not taking a bunch of degenerate woman haters with the seriousness and dignity they deserve.

I figured that setting bounties on women is like, a pretty good case for that, but apprently no, we have to believe that these really are good hearted but maybe misdirected folks. And not like, American ISIS. Which they are. Yallqueda fundamentalists.