Well don’t go back, they’ll probably charge you and your family.
Avoid all red states. I wouldn’t put it past another state to extradite her.
This is just good advice in general.
Nah, now it's gonna be an interstate commerce fight, something texas basically has no chance of winning even with SCOTUS rooting for them
I left my usual round of asshole political voicemails this weekend. After another call I accidentally tapped Paxton's 800 number again today and it was not accepting calls or overwhelmed.
Good fuck them.
We could have codified Roe, but keeping the filibuster was more important than women.
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important. Without it, Republicans would simply have un-codified Roe in 2016.
Followed by repealing the Voting Rights Act and Medicaid, privatizing Social Security and the Post Office, enacting a regressive flat tax, etc.
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important.
...for blocking progress. Republicans don't have to put any work into blocking progress since Democrats do it for them.
It also blocks Republicans from repealing any progress.
And Democrats from implementing any. Popular progress would make Republicans very unpopular indeed if they repealed it. Just look what happened when they finally caught that car they'd been chasing for decades and killed Roe.
Imagine if they had to undo the law first and then get the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. They would have taken the same popularity hit twice. Imagine if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed instead of being stopped in its tracks by the filibuster. All the fuckery Republicans are trying to pull at the state level would have to get through a popular civil rights law first. But no. The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and holds back civil rights to this day. And that's how centrists like it.
Since it provides Democrats a way to pretend their hands are tied, they prioritize its preservation over the civil rights of their constituents.
Of course, this also means they have limited accomplishments to run on. Which is why the only message right now is "not trump".
Yes, what happened after Republicans killed Roe? Kate Cox had to flee her state to get an abortion, that's what. Republicans are doubling down, not backing down.
I'd rather have small, permanent progress than constantly watch Republicans take away what we gained.
By the way, state legislatures don't have filibusters. Having seen what they are doing, I don't want more of the same at the federal level.
I’d rather have small, permanent progress
You'd rather have no progress.
I'd rather not have the equivalent of the Florida or Texas legislature running the country. That's worse than no progress.
Same. Unfortunately, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was less important than centrists' adherence to the Jim Crow Filibuster.
Floridians had rights, until suddenly they didn't.
Rights aren't so important when they can easily taken away.
Rights aren't important to you at all. As long as Democrats get to keep their stupid procedural excuse for inaction, everything else is secondary.
And yet they are taking action where they can, like in Ohio, Kansas, etc.
You are willing to risk everything for short term again, most of us aren't.
Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn't have dared to strike down your abortion statute.
Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn’t have dared to strike down your abortion statute.
They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first. It would be greater protection than Roe by itself.
“Because Jesus died on the cross for your sins”
Prove it
They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first.
Because Congress lacks the authority to regulate that issue, and the tenth amendment exists. Issues relating to health or morals are typically left to the states. Arguing something like the interstate commerce clause would have been quite the stretch.
The 9th amendment also exists, as do the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 14th. To believe it's a states rights issue is hilariously wrong, as is the Dobbs opinion. Dobbs is law right now, but this court destroyed any concept of precedent mattering, and the younger generations are in overwhelming support of abortion. Dobbs will be overturned, and the right knows it, hence aspects of project 2025 being partially about stripping all people of the right to an abortion.
Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.
Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.
If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.
And you strike me as an originalist. Don't go after my legal knowledge like you think you know how much I do or don't know. I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
The arguments presented for Dobbs, were exclusively Christian fundamentalist. It relied on literally 0 actually substantial claims, it was clearly a case that SCOTUS already made up its mind for.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent of Roe when they were having their confirmation hearings. They swore they would not because the GOP knew of the fallout that would happen if Roe was ever actually overturned. The 2022 and 2023 elections proved them right.
Even Clarence Thomas said he would abstain on cases like this where he has such personal feelings in his own confirmation hearings, yet he did not do so in Roe. The point I'm getting at with this is that at least 4 of the judges that voted for it have already demonstrated they're fucking liars. How much of your word can you even take, even if you agree with them?
Lastly, I suggest you read the concurring opinions of Dobbs. Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying. There is no legal argument in it, it is strictly pure hatred. If it wasn't, and he was being consistent, he would have mentioned overturning Loving v. Virginia too, but we all know why that's not something he'll do.
And you strike me as an originalist.
Definitely not.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent
Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.
I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
Congrats, you and every other 1L.
Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying.
For a refreshing change of pace?
Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.
A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.
Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn. You saying that confirms literally all I need to know about your intent
Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say
Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn.
So you have no sense of sarcasm?
Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say
I'm sorry, you're too stupid to continue this. Nothing I said was manipulative or fascistic, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
My girlfriend just made a cross-country trip from Florida to WA state. She took a southern route across and actually went around Texas to avoid giving them ANY money (gas, food, etc). Yes, it delayed her trip, and cost a bit more, but knowing she didn’t support a bigoted and hateful state government was worth it.
Why'd she pick the farthest state in the continental US?
Didn’t want to drive a smart car (what she was picking up) with two cats through maintain passes in December.
Good luck to you both, stay safe and maybe get a vasectomy? Sure sucks less than a fat oinker bothering your girlfriend on a necessary medical trip.
E: lots of downvotes. Troubled about the vasectomy suggestion, or that I mistakenly thought the dude's gf had to travel for an abortion? 😂
Tf are you talking about?
What's confusing you? The wishing you both good luck part or the... Try to avoid needing to travel for an abortion part?
I think she was on a road trip bruh. Like just a normal, every day road trip. She didn't want to give Texas any of her $$$ in gas, taxes, hotel, or food. If I didn't live here, I wouldn't either, and I openly applaud her for her dedication.
Not every single road trip across the US needs to be specifically for medical care. In fact, I'd argue that no one should have to take a road trip for medical care. Don't make assumptions.
Oh, dang. It being an article about someone leaving the state to get an abortion, I thought that's what this person was saying their girlfriend also had to sort of do, avoiding Texas in the process.
But it could also just be a road trip. 😅
Yeah, I saw the connection you made, and then the confusion from the original poster, and I was like "Oop. Some conclusions were jumped to here!"
It wasn't an illogical leap at all, but Texas-New Mexico border towns are already trying to claim that their towns are "Fetal Sanctuary Towns". They want to prosecute women for driving on their roads to seek abortive care in New Mexico. So the last thing we need is people like that assuming that every woman driving anywhere is doing so just for an abortion.
I wonder if she is considering leaving the state for good. What a dumpster fire.
I bet these Republic of Gilead states try to prevent women from traveling or moving out of their shithole states next. Or charge them with something when they get back after getting medical care in a free state. We can't be having these uppity women thinking they live in a FREE country or anything.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The announcement came as Kate Cox, 31, was awaiting a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court over whether she could legally obtain an abortion under narrow exceptions to the state’s ban.
A judge gave Cox, a mother of two from the Dallas area, permission last week but that decision was put on hold by the state’s all-Republican high court.
She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Cox.
“The pervasive ‘climate of fear’ among the Texas medical community is certain to be made worse by this case and the State’s actions in opposing the abortion Ms. Cox needs,” read the brief, which was filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has defended the state’s strict anti-abortion laws for nearly a decade, argued that Cox did not demonstrate that the pregnancy had put her life in danger.
Doctors told Cox that her fetus has a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth, and low survival rates, according to her lawsuit filed last week in Austin.
The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Well don’t go back, they’ll probably charge you and your family.
Avoid all red states. I wouldn’t put it past another state to extradite her.
This is just good advice in general.
Nah, now it's gonna be an interstate commerce fight, something texas basically has no chance of winning even with SCOTUS rooting for them
I left my usual round of asshole political voicemails this weekend. After another call I accidentally tapped Paxton's 800 number again today and it was not accepting calls or overwhelmed.
Good fuck them.
We could have codified Roe, but keeping the filibuster was more important than women.
Keeping the filibuster is pretty important. Without it, Republicans would simply have un-codified Roe in 2016.
Followed by repealing the Voting Rights Act and Medicaid, privatizing Social Security and the Post Office, enacting a regressive flat tax, etc.
...for blocking progress. Republicans don't have to put any work into blocking progress since Democrats do it for them.
It also blocks Republicans from repealing any progress.
And Democrats from implementing any. Popular progress would make Republicans very unpopular indeed if they repealed it. Just look what happened when they finally caught that car they'd been chasing for decades and killed Roe.
Imagine if they had to undo the law first and then get the Supreme Court to strike down Roe. They would have taken the same popularity hit twice. Imagine if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed instead of being stopped in its tracks by the filibuster. All the fuckery Republicans are trying to pull at the state level would have to get through a popular civil rights law first. But no. The filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era, and holds back civil rights to this day. And that's how centrists like it.
Since it provides Democrats a way to pretend their hands are tied, they prioritize its preservation over the civil rights of their constituents.
Of course, this also means they have limited accomplishments to run on. Which is why the only message right now is "not trump".
Yes, what happened after Republicans killed Roe? Kate Cox had to flee her state to get an abortion, that's what. Republicans are doubling down, not backing down.
I'd rather have small, permanent progress than constantly watch Republicans take away what we gained.
By the way, state legislatures don't have filibusters. Having seen what they are doing, I don't want more of the same at the federal level.
You'd rather have no progress.
I'd rather not have the equivalent of the Florida or Texas legislature running the country. That's worse than no progress.
Same. Unfortunately, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was less important than centrists' adherence to the Jim Crow Filibuster.
Floridians had rights, until suddenly they didn't.
Rights aren't so important when they can easily taken away.
Rights aren't important to you at all. As long as Democrats get to keep their stupid procedural excuse for inaction, everything else is secondary.
And yet they are taking action where they can, like in Ohio, Kansas, etc.
You are willing to risk everything for short term again, most of us aren't.
Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn't have dared to strike down your abortion statute.
They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first. It would be greater protection than Roe by itself.
“Because Jesus died on the cross for your sins”
Prove it
Because Congress lacks the authority to regulate that issue, and the tenth amendment exists. Issues relating to health or morals are typically left to the states. Arguing something like the interstate commerce clause would have been quite the stretch.
The 9th amendment also exists, as do the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 14th. To believe it's a states rights issue is hilariously wrong, as is the Dobbs opinion. Dobbs is law right now, but this court destroyed any concept of precedent mattering, and the younger generations are in overwhelming support of abortion. Dobbs will be overturned, and the right knows it, hence aspects of project 2025 being partially about stripping all people of the right to an abortion.
Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.
Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.
If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.
And you strike me as an originalist. Don't go after my legal knowledge like you think you know how much I do or don't know. I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
The arguments presented for Dobbs, were exclusively Christian fundamentalist. It relied on literally 0 actually substantial claims, it was clearly a case that SCOTUS already made up its mind for.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent of Roe when they were having their confirmation hearings. They swore they would not because the GOP knew of the fallout that would happen if Roe was ever actually overturned. The 2022 and 2023 elections proved them right.
Even Clarence Thomas said he would abstain on cases like this where he has such personal feelings in his own confirmation hearings, yet he did not do so in Roe. The point I'm getting at with this is that at least 4 of the judges that voted for it have already demonstrated they're fucking liars. How much of your word can you even take, even if you agree with them?
Lastly, I suggest you read the concurring opinions of Dobbs. Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying. There is no legal argument in it, it is strictly pure hatred. If it wasn't, and he was being consistent, he would have mentioned overturning Loving v. Virginia too, but we all know why that's not something he'll do.
Definitely not.
Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.
Congrats, you and every other 1L.
For a refreshing change of pace?
Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.
A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.
Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn. You saying that confirms literally all I need to know about your intent
Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say
So you have no sense of sarcasm?
I'm sorry, you're too stupid to continue this. Nothing I said was manipulative or fascistic, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
My girlfriend just made a cross-country trip from Florida to WA state. She took a southern route across and actually went around Texas to avoid giving them ANY money (gas, food, etc). Yes, it delayed her trip, and cost a bit more, but knowing she didn’t support a bigoted and hateful state government was worth it.
Why'd she pick the farthest state in the continental US?
Didn’t want to drive a smart car (what she was picking up) with two cats through maintain passes in December.
Good luck to you both, stay safe and maybe get a vasectomy? Sure sucks less than a fat oinker bothering your girlfriend on a necessary medical trip.
E: lots of downvotes. Troubled about the vasectomy suggestion, or that I mistakenly thought the dude's gf had to travel for an abortion? 😂
Tf are you talking about?
What's confusing you? The wishing you both good luck part or the... Try to avoid needing to travel for an abortion part?
I think she was on a road trip bruh. Like just a normal, every day road trip. She didn't want to give Texas any of her $$$ in gas, taxes, hotel, or food. If I didn't live here, I wouldn't either, and I openly applaud her for her dedication.
Not every single road trip across the US needs to be specifically for medical care. In fact, I'd argue that no one should have to take a road trip for medical care. Don't make assumptions.
Oh, dang. It being an article about someone leaving the state to get an abortion, I thought that's what this person was saying their girlfriend also had to sort of do, avoiding Texas in the process.
But it could also just be a road trip. 😅
Yeah, I saw the connection you made, and then the confusion from the original poster, and I was like "Oop. Some conclusions were jumped to here!"
It wasn't an illogical leap at all, but Texas-New Mexico border towns are already trying to claim that their towns are "Fetal Sanctuary Towns". They want to prosecute women for driving on their roads to seek abortive care in New Mexico. So the last thing we need is people like that assuming that every woman driving anywhere is doing so just for an abortion.
Ugh. This state blows.
I wonder if she is considering leaving the state for good. What a dumpster fire.
I bet these Republic of Gilead states try to prevent women from traveling or moving out of their shithole states next. Or charge them with something when they get back after getting medical care in a free state. We can't be having these uppity women thinking they live in a FREE country or anything.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The announcement came as Kate Cox, 31, was awaiting a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court over whether she could legally obtain an abortion under narrow exceptions to the state’s ban.
A judge gave Cox, a mother of two from the Dallas area, permission last week but that decision was put on hold by the state’s all-Republican high court.
She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Cox.
“The pervasive ‘climate of fear’ among the Texas medical community is certain to be made worse by this case and the State’s actions in opposing the abortion Ms. Cox needs,” read the brief, which was filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has defended the state’s strict anti-abortion laws for nearly a decade, argued that Cox did not demonstrate that the pregnancy had put her life in danger.
Doctors told Cox that her fetus has a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth, and low survival rates, according to her lawsuit filed last week in Austin.
The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot