1076
Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1076 points (98.0% liked)
News
23301 readers
1641 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Doesn't this run afoul of the commerce clause?
A random ass County can't ban travel on any roads or highway for any reason, right? That's strictly the job of congress.
Also I'd like to add:
How about this worthless board look into why there is so much crime in the county before Talibaning travel for women?
You have a 1 in 92 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Lubbock County compared to a 1 in 220 chance in the rest of Texas
Because Lubbock is a meth-infested shithole in the middle of nowhere. The only thing to do there is drugs, alcohol, rape, and domestic violence.
Truly a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."
Board: "that's almost where we want things, let's see if we can pump up those chances"
My first thought as well. There is NO way this doesn't get struck down in a court case. If you can't even ban guns on streets near schools (US v. Lopez) then you definitely can't ban a person from driving on a road to get to a medical procedure in a different state.
Have you seen the other decisions made by SCOTUS?
They don't give a shit about consistency or law or precedent. They are politicians put there to deliver specific outcomes.
They do care about precedent, usually too much in my opinion. There have been many cases in the last few years brought to SCOTUS seeking the overturning of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, but SCOTUS has in all cases either not taken them up or not ruled on that issue. They basically keep saying, "we've already ruled on this, we won't touch it unless Congress changes the law in some way." Dobbs was like the one issue SCOTUS has actually overturned a previous opinion on in recent years.
It's not a ban, per se, it "just" opens people up to civil liability. The reason they do it that way is to skirt the Constitution.
My guess is this is what will doom this law, specifically since they're also looking at drugs which are certainly commodities from out of state.
It might also be a prior restraint case depending on if traveling to a women's healthcare provider is protected expression.
Like, the problem for the county here is trying to stop people from doing something they can't prove they're actually going to do.
They might be able to plus up other charges based on using county property in the commission of some other "crime" (gigantic air quotes). Sort of like getting extra charges due to using the USPS to commit a crime.
Exactly. They’d have to prove you were specifically going there to get an abortion.
Cops can’t stop you because you were on your way to a bank, just because they feel you might want to rob it. You have to have actually done something illegal in the first place.
LOL Sure, in theory they can't, but in reality cops do stop people for any made up reason and they can also shoot you for any made up reason without consequence.
And "pro-life" people will support every cop that kills a pregnant woman on that highway.
All they have is performative politics.
Or they hope it sticks. If they flood the courts with enough egregiously fucked up laws some are bound to slip through.
The big stick that the federal government has in this case (regarding highway travel) is funding. Considering where funding bills typically start, I don't think we can blame the president for this one.