Kansas Crimson

dub needs a codpiece wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:05 am The women aren’t being sued. Everyone else is. The women are just in the lurch because Texas made abortion toxic and unattainable

sdoyel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:10 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:20 pm and so it begins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

...On Monday, an Arkansas man said he decided to file a lawsuit to test the constitutionality of the Texas measure after reading a news report about Braid’s declaration. Oscar Stilley, a former lawyer convicted of tax fraud in 2010, said he is not personally opposed to abortion, but believes that the measure should be subject to judicial review...

let’s see how apolitical ACB and her buddies are now

For 40 years, the unspoken truth behind the “pro-life” movement has been that its real target is not Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, which, in the context of information about birth control, established a right to individual privacy. This has stuck in the conservative craw ever since it was applied to birth control, and abortion, and gay rights, and a number of other things that make the conservative id feel all icky. The basic line of attack is that there is no specific right to privacy in the Constitution, that it is a judicial concoction. Keep that latter phrase in mind. It will be useful later.

Anyway, people generally like privacy, and they generally like the things they do in private, especially as regards sexy time, so directly attacking Griswold was (rightly) deemed to be a political loser. The specter of heartless women killing their little babies was much easier to sell. But that basic goal always was there, the engine thrumming away in the back room as Roe was chipped away at, little by little.

What came to light over the weekend, however, gave the game away for free. The brief was filed with the Court back at the end of July on behalf of Texas Right to Life, and the counsel of record was one Jonathan F. Mitchell, the clever dick behind the new vigilante-adjacent anti-choice law on which the Court inexcusably took a dive.

[...]

[italicized text from Mitchell's brief:]

The news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. These “rights,” like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions — [Ed. Note: Ding, ding, ding!] , and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence. This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case. But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe.

See this bag right here? See the cat over there? It’s hard to believe that the Court would engage in a sweeping evisceration of privacy rights, but it’s not as hard to believe as it was five years ago.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:07 am well now that’s perspective i hadn’t seen yet

it would seem to indicate that the party of personal freedoms might only want freedoms that they agree with, and that they really do indeed lack a solidly principled stance in personal rights