this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1071 points (98.0% liked)

News

23655 readers
3401 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday's meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas' existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orphiebaby@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This sounds incredibly illegal? Where the fuck is the law?

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately, the legal precedent that protected a woman's right to get an abortion was overturned by the SCOTUS and now we've got a complete mish-mash of state and local laws being created to test the boundaries of what they can do.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's almost like using precedents instead of just writing the fucking laws unambiguously is an inherently broken concept.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would say the 14th Amendment is pretty unambiguous on abortion, just as the Commerce Clause is 100% unambiguous on the unconstitutionality of these travel laws. The problem is that it's not specific, which is the opening used by this adversarial SCOTUS.

Even if you had 100 pages listing specifics for a Constitutional Amendment, you'd STILL miss obvious ones. The protection from Cruel and Unusual punishment, for example. It should be more unambiguous by including a list of 100 things the authors considered cruel, 100 things the authors considered unusual, and then a stipulation that they meant "if any of those 200 items is true". And even then, those Constitutional authors didn't write "Keelhauling" in the list, so that must be fine!

But summarizing... You can't have a large over-arcing right that stands the test of time and dishonest lawmakers without it being general and requiring some interpretation. If only we could solve for dishonest SCOTUS justices.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ultimately, the only check or balance that actually works is the people. No system of laws will protect you from a broken culture. If millions of Americans didn't support this kind of behaviour then the politicians writing these laws would never have won their elections, but since they do, they'll find whatever justification they need to to impose their ideology.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Sure, but I'm replying to the person whose opinion is that laws aren't worded correctly. They're worded fine. There's just bad actors involved.

Without bad actors, you don't need to worry about wording laws more specifically. With bad actors, it doesn't matter if you have a "Abortions cannot be banned" amendment.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually don't think Dobbs affected this that much. Texas was trying to circumvent Roe before Dobbs, anyway, not using criminal prosecution but by allowing people to be sued in civil court for abortion.

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, and they found lots of subtle ways to make abortions inconvenient and in some cases unavailable. But now that they can make them outright illegal, they're passing laws to criminalize everyone and everything involved.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The ordinance in this Texas case doesn't make anything criminal, it uses the same civil liability workaround that Texas was using at the state level before Dobbs.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Probably blocking the road

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Full faith and credit only works in one direction; towards Texas.

The bigots dictate the law now and everyone lets them because no one wants to overthrow those evil local governments, not even legally through elections.