A state district judge granted the request Thursday, but the Texas Supreme Court directed the lower court to vacate its order on Monday.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      We’ve known this for years. Such people are either too stupid or scumbags. Speaking as a former Republican.

      • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Or just brainwashed. Having grown up in a conservative, christian, home-school household I was told to vote R no matter what. I didn’t really know any better until I got out into the “real world” and understood what a bullshit take that was.

        I now vote “fuck the GQP” every chance I get. That included the recent ballot issues here in Ohio for abortion rights and legal marijuana.

        I would also call myself agnostic from a religious perspective. Though I would lean more atheist if pressed.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Dude no shit? I grew up in a rural Appalachian Christian household, homeschooled. I also consider myself agnostic.

          Several things influenced major changes in my household. While my parents marched in pro-life DC rallies and were somewhat religious, my dad was a hippie in his early years and anti-Vietnam, and my mom is truly a very empathetic person. After Bush invaded Iraq, that combined with what I consider the wild west of the internet helped break them out of the echo-chamber.

          Ultimately we all flipped 180 to progressive Dems over the years.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      11 months ago

      I believe the Texas law allows citizens to sue anyone who helps her get the abortion, so conceivably an airline pilot or bus driver or a significant other who drives her, could be sued. They can’t stop it after she leaves the state, but they can retaliate against anyone who helps her.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        11 months ago

        This stupid law has not been tested in court yet. It seems destined for the Supreme Court in the end, which I bet rules against it, because it’s awarding damages to random people who have not been damaged

      • vrek@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        It would be interesting if she used a major corporation. I know no non-public info but let’s say she got a flight on American Airlines.

        The Texas government suing American Airlines in a civil case(both parties have an army of lawyers and funds to defend themselves) over this would probably set legal precident.

        I don’t agree with the law, just stating that the resulting suit would be interesting to follow.

  • The Barto@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Wait, so it’s fine to forcibly risk the life of the mother just because some pedo in a robe said sky daddy says it’s wrong… I’m getting this right ay?

    • wagesj45@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      And failing for as hard as they’re trying. They may lose a few seats here and there, but not in the numbers they “should” because the Dems can’t help but fumble the ball. You can decide for yourself whether that’s purposeful or by accident. I can never make my mind up.

  • homura1650@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    I actually read the 7 page opinion, because normally there is at least some shred of reasonableness in these crazy opinions. But this one … those 7 pages have nothing.

    I’ll just leave this little nugget from the end:

    The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.

    The really telling part of all of this is that there was no reason for this to be a thing. The state attorney general chose to fight this specific case. Then chose to send a letter to every hospital saying the injunction did not actually protect them, and chose to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

    None of that had to happen. He could have let the extreme cases go through while fighting to remove women’s rights on the more “controversial” cases, but instead chose to make a test case out the most extreme interpretation of his extremist ideology.

    Despite this, the court seems willfully blind to the fact that the reason for needing an injunction is that the state is acting in demonstorable bad faith.

    Side note. Remember when the US SC ruled that this law could not be challenged because the state was not going to be the one enforcing it?