Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snot

(10,681 posts)
Fri Sep 3, 2021, 11:43 AM Sep 2021

Seriously: re- the legal issues re- the TX anti-abortion law

Last edited Sat Sep 4, 2021, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm hoping there are people here who know more than me who can help explore the actual legal issues.

If putting enforcement in the hands of private parties works to defeat constitutionally protected rights, why couldn't all other constitutional rights be nullified by the same mechanism? Could legislatures give private parties the power to sue gun sellers? Could former Confederate States pass laws prohibiting state officials from enforcing slavery but allowing private parties to do so?

On another point, what constitutes "state action" subject to constitutional restrictions: the action of the legislature in passing such a law? The action of a court in entertaining a suit by a private party based on the law? Aren't such restrictions relatively toothless if they only applies to arrests by or fines payable to state officials?

I realize the S. Ct. disclaimed any opinion re- constitutionality, but what if the law is unconstitutional on its face?

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Seriously: re- the legal issues re- the TX anti-abortion law (Original Post) snot Sep 2021 OP
The theory is that no clinic can afford to flaunt the law so ... Kablooie Sep 2021 #1
That is the only way the TX law could stand, snot Sep 2021 #4
Could it be this sneaky enforcement method is a skirting of... brush Sep 2021 #2
Exactly snot Sep 2021 #3

Kablooie

(18,753 posts)
1. The theory is that no clinic can afford to flaunt the law so ...
Fri Sep 3, 2021, 12:23 PM
Sep 2021

no cases will be brought up for the unconstitutional law to be shot down.

But there will be women who have underground or self abortions.
Sooner or later some greedy asshole will sue some poor woman who had to do this and then the law will be able to be reviewed.
Since the law flagrantly conflicts with Roe wouldn't they have to rule it unconstitutional then?

snot

(10,681 posts)
4. That is the only way the TX law could stand,
Sat Sep 4, 2021, 02:14 PM
Sep 2021

as far as I can see (though I'm no expert).

The S. Ct.'s action in this case is almost like a sort of ignominious heads-up to women of an intention – to overturn Roe – that they know to be shameful: women had better either stop having sex or plan to have babies.

brush

(57,391 posts)
2. Could it be this sneaky enforcement method is a skirting of...
Fri Sep 3, 2021, 12:25 PM
Sep 2021

the Constitution and could, if extrapolated out by extremist, very well be an opening of a legal Pandora's box—i.e. your mention of gun and enslavement issues.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»Seriously: re- the legal ...