Saturday News: Academy Awards and Abortion

Rita Moreno is covered in an article that is part of various looks as we approach the Academy Awards. I used to be a big fan though as with my general interest in going to the movies, eventually no longer really paid it much mind. I have not really watched it for a while. It doesn't help that I see nearly none of the films.

Rita Moreno, who I saw on Colbert some months back (she is one of those actors around 90 who look great), was a pioneer as the first Latina who won an Academy Award. Sixty years later, she was involved in the latest version of West Side Story. It's on cable now, so maybe I'll check it out. 

The article is silly at one point by censoring a quote (can we allow a 90 year old to use a curse word?) with [expletive].  Come on.  

===

The Texas Supreme Court (the NYT article notes they are all Republicans -- hope Breyer doesn't cry) hold SB8 "ties their hands" and they just have to say that it does not allow lawsuits.  Private civil action alone is authorized. The argument was that in actuality various public officials are involved in one way or another, including health authorities. 

The 5th Cir. Court of Appeals, with the U.S. Supreme Court looking on, sent the matter back to them to settle this issue.  Or, something of that nature -- the article does not talk about this, but it sounds like the issue that was sent back to the state court to decide.  And, another article does cite that.  See also.

It all is bullshit to me -- the courts are being used (not purely private) and it very well changes the actions of multiple public officials, even if it is a creative lie that allows some bullshit claim of non-public involvement.  State officials can have their cake (hands off) and eat it too (this is a great moment for pro-life!). 

The article notes the courts have "failed," but I would say more than that.  I found this law professor as an example of the sort of not showing the right amount of strong reaction given the stakes.  

I realize the whole "wrong person on the Internet" issue, but it can also serve as a platform for a reaction.  My general reason for being upset at this person is that the whole thing seems like an interesting academic problem to him.  And, his blog comments are off even on that level at times.

He once compared it to the NYT v. Sullivan case (major libel case involving civil rights), which bothered me since the two things aren't comparable in a real world sense.  I note the person is an enthusiastic supporter of free speech, at times in ways that to me seem a tad overheated.  So, e.g., it bothers him rather much when a sports stadium wants to stop what is seen as offensive fan reactions.  That riles him up.  This is a sort of word problem.  You don't see the same reaction.  It's offensive. 

The case there was troublesome for the paper (and certain people who signed the ad in question) as the issue was litigated.  This is standard on some level.  But, it is not as if reporting of the civil rights movement stopped.  The threat on the ground to abortion services is much greater here.  Also, the libel suit was nefarious, sure, but in a basic way followed normal legal rules.  This case is upsetting to people in part since the legal system is being altered (the procedural road blocks in fact bother some on principle, aside from the abortion rights issue).  Again, the two are not the same.  It bothered me that he made the comparison. 

Data released in February shows that the Texas law cut the number of abortions in the state by 60 percent. Planned Parenthood clinics in neighboring states have reported an 800 percent increase in women seeking abortions. But that avenue, too, is likely to close soon.

For instance, Oklahoma (a bordering state) passed a six week ban. Missouri, as we have seen, is thinking about addressing out of state abortions too.  The best bet might be New Mexico and (rather ironically) perhaps Mexico, since its Supreme Court recently protected abortion rights.  The travel to other states underlines the national effects of such laws and why we should have one, equal, national right to choose.

And, we will soon have a ruling by the Supreme Court, a ruling that will be fucking illegitimate on a basic level.  The Supreme Court, however, with their sixth corrupt vote, decided to rush things along by letting Texas nullify constitutional rights.  It could not just hold things up, knowing they had the votes to do so in June, but do this.  It was patently corrupt. 

The courts alone did not fail us.  The Biden Administration did try, suing Texas.  The Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit without deigning to even fucking explain themselves. There wasn't even a fucking dissent -- Sotomayor dissented without opinion, using her spleen elsewhere repeatedly.  Which is great, but the issue of executive power to enforce constitutional rights was a separate issue that warranted comment.  

One legal journalist offered the idea of some sort of federal abortion doctors though I still don't know how it would have gotten around the Hyde Amendment.  No matter how cute, there would have been some sort of federal funds involved.  Letting abortions be performed on federal military bases or something simply is not allowed under the current law generally.  

The Democrats tried to pass a national abortion rights bill. Two didn't go along.  Collins and Murkowski, complaining about the size of a hose while the house is on fire, didn't support even debate.  Not that it would have mattered with the filibuster.  But, it underlined their lack of true concern regarding abortion rights in the face of the flames.

The sixty percent citation above is notable  Abortion, full stop, is not nullified as a right in Texas.  A significant amount of people have abortions very early in the pregnancy.  So early that, depending on the counting, they can get in within six weeks.  It is probably that a more closely enforced (including via lawsuit) law would reduce even that 40% number.  Still, Texas is the second most populous state. Even half of that is significant. 

SB8 is a type of slow burn -- the burning is taking over six months, but flames are apparent all the same.  Not enough was done in response, noting we do have so much more to keep our attention.  

While the Republicans rallying around symbolic end federal vaccine mandate votes (failing 49-50 on party lines the other day before an omnibus spending bill was passed), more and more efforts of involuntary servitude are being made.  

Some efforts are particularly bad.  They show the excited passions and excitement of the moment.  Meanwhile, so many fail to care.