We also have various op-eds. Linda Greenhouse overall sees the anti-abortion laws as basically a wrongful use of sectarian religion (concur).
We also have two supporters. One talks about how the science is gaining on the pro-choice side. But, really, what has changed but somewhat more knowledge and fetal surgery? The same basics hold. What makes this particular law, for instance, any less wrong? Viability didn't change much. Forced pregnancy is not so much easier or anything. We know the same basics about the moral, religion, and other factors in decision-making.
Another from a Southern Baptist (right after Roe, that religious tradition supported leaving it to the individual in many cases) viewpoint appears to try hard to be moderate. Factoring the various hard questions given nature of the law, including the troubling legal aspects. Noting how society in various ways helps an abortion taking place.
But, the op-ed is clearly from a "pro-life Christian" (as that term is usually understood; all these terms can be spun in various ways) point of view. An "unborn child" is involved (most abortions occur in the first trimester, if not so early to fit under this law, including when many would not use that term). Each abortion is a "failure" for both the woman (not always a woman; many girls, some trans and non-binary people) and said child.
Really now? If a woman is raped, is it really a failure to have the abortion? The implication is that a birth could never be a failure. But, many do not believe that. There are various scenarios where an abortion seems to be the appropriate choice. It need not be considered a failure. Conception sets into place a process. Some chunk naturally are miscarried. Is that a failure or just nature taking her (let's say) course?
She notes that "The highest purpose of human law is the protection of human life, from its beginning to its natural end." Again, people debate what "human life" in this fashion truly entails. Also, how do you truly protect human life? If fifteen year old girl -- to take an easier case -- is not ready to give birth, perhaps human life is best protected via an abortion.
===
President Biden asked the DOJ and HHS in particular to look into the Texas law and how the Biden Administration should respond. Today, AG Garland announced a civil suit against Texas to block the law. For instance, would it not interfere with federal prisons being able to provide health care to its women prisoners?
[This blog post has some helpful links and summaries. Note how the "heartbeat" quotation usage. The journalist behind Jost on Justice wondered in a tweet about just that. Many have noted that at the six week guidepost -- actually weeks earlier given how pregnancy is usually counted -- does not really have a true heartbeat.
It is more a blip that is heard on machines. So, he argues quotations to signify a word is not really being used normally, a sort of scare quotation, would seem to be appropriate. And, I think he makes a good point.
Maybe, even "six" weeks is appropriate. It was noted that many men are not aware of how pregnancies are counted. I think many people are ignorant there. After all, we are continuously warned about the ignorance that leads to pregnancy, and not just by teens. (Update)]
After some noises about another approach got some upset, this firm attack impressed various opponents. They also liked the Administration going after federal workers with a vaccine mandate though the post office and the other two branches would not be included. It's only eight months in (soon) and the Biden Administration had a lot of activity, huh?
Anyway, there is obviously a lot of debate over the approach, with various people saying it is sound (but who knows how the Supreme Court will rule). We will see what happens, including if the Administration will do some more things.
===
Friday: 5CA decides and does so with a gratuitous anti-trans potshot (at least one of the panel -- though the opinion is unsigned -- is a known anti-trans judge). Maybe we forgot, but the Supreme Court acted when the 5CA granted an administrative stay (deemed by various law types as a dubious move) of the district court opinion. They got around to dropping the opinion to keep it in place on take out the trash day. Coincidence?
The opinion is summarized here. One thing various people flagged was a footnote:
The district court felt moved to “note that people other than those who identify as ‘women’ may also become pregnant and seek abortion services.” Order at 2 n.2. This notion, whatever it might mean, ignores that the law applies only to “an abortion on a pregnant woman.”
One thing some people (to the disdain of this nature of some others) have noted was that "women" aren't the only people who might need an abortion. Trans and non-binary individuals also might. If the judges here are so confused, that is what that probably means. As to the last bit, are pregnant girls, transmen and non-binary people not covered or something?
Jackass. We also have Ivy Tower guy (though granting it unfortunate) says "But, for better or worse, procedurally the court is correct." One law professor / appellate litigator (far from alone) said he felt the reasoning was "thin." And, including members of the Supreme Court, others are out there who agree with him at least to some degree. No comments allowed though.
ITG, like the 5CA, says the way to go is for someone to violate the law. But, that leaves people open to a lot of liabilities, which is why other ways were found to avoid needing to do that. The summary says the 5CA will look at once potential party that the district court says has no immunity, but the court holding things in place (continuing harm to those who need abortion services) does not bode that well for that either.
And, the wheels continue to go round and round.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!