Hacker News Reader

Comment by rescripting | Hacker News Reader

The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold.

View on HN

If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).

I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.

The country is going through an increasing blue/red divide. It is working both ways.

Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period?

Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.

Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power.

There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics.

The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.

But the Supreme Court pretty much already declined to hear the case, in a 5-4 decision.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas...

That was a "no standing" ruling -- they can't enjoin the Attorney General of Texas because he doesn't enforce the abortion rule. Once there is a case with standing, it'll bubble up to the supreme court.

They didn't decline to hear the case on substantive grounds (i.e., on the merits). They declined to hear an emergency appeal to stay the law on procedural grounds.

So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.

> the law is plainly unconstitutional

Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional?

Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid.

The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.

It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States.

The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.

This particular SC might have a bigger interest in banning abortion though, all else be damned.

This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973

You can call it "not a good take" but if the argument is that the "constitution protects it" but it isn't enumerated—then you really can't argue that the constitution protects it.

Tell that to all the judges and law professors who have studied Constitutional law for decades and who have concluded otherwise.

I’ll get the popcorn.

>Can you show me, from the text of the constitution

It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law.

As such, here you go:

"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1]

Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not.

So, under current law, there should be no question, right?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Except... this isn't law. This is legal precedent. The court can only rule on laws—it cannot create them.

This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).

What do you think law is? The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court’s interpretation is that that law protects the right to abortion.

You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.

This is law. They state this is a result of the 14th Amendment. There is no higher law.

In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US.

There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law.

The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.

I am kinda interested on what happens if they let it stand. If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion, what kind of fun will we get when this legal theory gets applied to gun laws?

>> If Bob in Ohio can sue some doctor in Texas over an abortion

This is already happening btw: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057

That’s exactly what it is. And lots of posturing.

But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works.

There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.

I have seen the exact opposite conspiracy theory proposed.

That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.

This is probably similar to that theory that democrats made covid vaccine political to kill republican voters because they wouldn't take it out of hate for democrats. An absolutely ridiculous sentiment and lie. Somehow, no matter what happens, they are always the victim and being persecuted - even when they are imposing their will on others.

>this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold

This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...

That was my first thought too. But then doesn't that logic also apply to any state that passes laws its minority party doesn't like? California has experienced red flight due to their laws.

Yea, it’s a signal that works both ways. I’ve met a handful of new arrivals from New York and California who want to get to Texas because it’s a red state (and there’s a perception that homes are cheap).

Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.

Why is it so bad for states to make their own laws about abortion?

...part of me thinks the blue side of the aisle welcomes this law and will use it to change the states colour in the next election cycles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com