217
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 12 Dec 2023
217 points (98.2% liked)
News
37747 readers
206 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think they were just side stepping since they paused the lower courts ruling and then when they found out she left the state they dismissed their ruling as moot and then just went and overturned the lower courts. Pretty fucking spineless but they can still throw a supposed W and make themselves out to upholding values or some other BS talking point.
So is the court is throwing out the law or saying that the state doesn't get to question physicians, which would logically have the same result?
It's neither. They want the medical gridlock where physicians are afraid to perform abortions, all while keeping them technically legal.
The court is saying they don't want to be involved and that the law 'allows for abortions in cases of medical emergency.' The problem is the state is separately saying that they'll prosecute her for trying to get an abortion in the state. Basically Texas is trying to have it both ways where the state courts claim she is already entitled to have an abortion so there is no legal dispute, while the state is saying she'll be prosecuted for having an abortion.
"A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment," it said in its decision.
Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School, said that part of what the Texas Supreme Court judges had to consider was whether they wanted “to be in the business of having every single medical exemption case end up” in their hands.
As the people above me have said it's that the courts are not to be pre-determining the validity of every instance where an abortion is claimed to meet the statutory exemption, and the consequential effect is that no woman wants to proceed in state and no doctor will touch it both for fear of being charged criminally and/or sued civilly. Nobody wants to be a test case that can cause that person criminal prosecution, civil prosecution, legal expenses, loss of medical license, loss of ability to support themselves and their families, and god knows what vigilante actions from the lunatic holy rollers. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, especially with Paxton threatening to bring the full weight of the government of the State of Texas against you. All of which is just how the Republicans who passed this wanted. They only put the exemption in there to make the law give the appearance of giving a shit about the mother's health.