DOJ Sues Texas Over Abortion Law

Well, of course they did, because this is the thing that Democrats are most concerned with. I guess they’re upset that fewer black women will be aborting their babies

Justice Department sues Texas over abortion law

The Justice Department announced Thursday that it is suing Texas over the state’s new law banning most abortions.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Texas law is “clearly unconstitutional” and includes an “unprecedented scheme” to insulate the state from responsibility.

The suit, filed in Texas federal court, charges that the law is invalid and asks a judge to issue a “permanent and preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute,” Garland said at a press conference.

The law stands as the country’s most restrictive abortion access in decades. It grants a $10,000 minimum reward to private citizens who successfully bring lawsuits against anyone involved in aiding an abortion. The law also prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity — usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. Because many women do not even realize they’re pregnant that early, the law is nearly a complete abortion ban. (snip)

The action comes a week after the Supreme Court declined to block the law from going into effect, citing “complex and novel” procedural questions regarding the abortion providers who had challenged it. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s three liberals in dissent, but the five other conservatives prevailed in a 5-4 opinion.

The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, declined to hear the case, yet, Garland is claiming it is unconstitutional? How so? The DOJ press release states

The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Those precedents hold, in the words of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that “[r]egardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”

First, that ruling is not in the Constitution, just a ruling. Second, the state isn’t prohibiting any woman, they can do it by week 6. They also are not stopping any woman from going to another state.

Because the statute makes it too risky for an abortion clinic to stay open, abortion providers have ceased providing services. This leaves women in Texas unable to exercise their constitutional rights and unable to obtain judicial review at the very moment they need it.

This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans – whatever their politics or party – should fear. If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.

Getting beyond the silly idiocy of “nullifying the Constitution”, which has nothing in it about abortion, the last part is the point: that other states could institute similar laws, and abortion is the number one belief of Democrats.

The complaint therefore seeks a declaratory judgment that SB8 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

There is no federal law, so, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play? Same with the 14th. Meh, doesn’t matter, the abortionistas do not want other states to do the same thing, they want abortion on demand running smoothly.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “DOJ Sues Texas Over Abortion Law”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Hundreds of Americans die each die for lack of a kidney transplant. Most people have two and can spare one. Should we force people to give up a kidney to save a life? Shouldn’t one maintain control of their personal bodily integrity even with a human life on the line?

    Thousands die each year for lack of a bone marrow transplant. Everyone has bone marrow to spare. Should we force everyone to be tested for a match to save a life? Shouldn’t one maintain control of their personal bodily integrity even with a human life on the line?

    So why would you demand that a rape victim relinquish her ability to maintain control of her personal bodily integrity even with a human life on the line? Is an embryo more sacred than a person?

  2. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: First, that ruling is not in the Constitution, just a ruling.

    The Supreme Court ruled that early-term abortion is a private matter under the U.S. Constitution.

    William Teach: Second, the state isn’t prohibiting any woman, they can do it by week 6.

    Most women don’t even know they are pregnant by the sixth week. Just having a late period or even missing a period is not uncommon for many women.

    William Teach: They also are not stopping any woman from going to another state.

    And someone who helps them leave the state for an abortion? Are they subject to civil suit under the law?

    William Teach: Getting beyond the silly idiocy of “nullifying the Constitution”,

    Given that abortion is a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, the method they chose for enforcement can be used to nullify any Constitutional right.

    William Teach: There is no federal law, so, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

    The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. See Article VI, Clause 2.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    The Supreme Court ruled that early-term abortion is a private matter under the U.S. Constitution.

    No they didn’t. The Court ruled that the decision was a private matter due to a “right” not listed under the Constitution. Saying the Supreme Court ruled an abortion is a “right” under the Constitution is a lie. Furthermore, the Court recognized that the “right” they created was not unlimited and could be restricted.

    Most women don’t even know they are pregnant by the sixth week. Just having a late period or even missing a period is not uncommon for many women.

    And your point? The issue is not whether a person knows they are pregnant but whether they are or not.

    Given that abortion is a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, the method they chose for enforcement can be used to nullify any Constitutional right.

    Please state the section and clause in the Constitution that says “abortion.”

    I’ll wait. Otherwise, you have just lied again.

    It is not a given that abortion is a “right” under the Constitution. Your continual repeating it does not make it true. Even so, once again, Roe v. Wade clearly states that access to an abortion is not a unlimited “right” and is still subject to laws.

    The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. See Article VI, Clause 2.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Yet the Constitution limits the power and the authority of the Federal government to make laws outside of the scope of the stated Federal interests.

    In other words, the very thing you want to claim gives the Federal government the right to make a law and say it is the “supreme law of the land” is the very object that limits what the Federal government can do.

    While John Marshall and the famous Madison v. Marbury case expanded the power of the Supreme Court to rule on Constitutional issues, subsequent cases ruled that the Court was limited in its rulings much as the Federal government is limited and has to give way to state laws and state courts.

    The Constitution may be the supreme law of the land in the areas the Constitution addresses and gives the authority to do but not all issues are allowed to be examined where the Constitution limits the power of the government.

    Teach is right. There is no Federal law on abortion. The Constitution is silent on the issue. The Supremacy Clause cannot venture where there is no jurisdiction and authority to do so.

    • Zachriel says:

      gitarcarver: No they didn’t.

      Roe: State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

      gitarcarver: Roe v. Wade clearly states that access to an abortion is not a unlimited “right” and is still subject to laws.

      That’s correct. The decision found that the right is qualified.

      gitarcarver: In other words, the very thing you want to claim gives the Federal government the right to make a law and say it is the “supreme law of the land” is the very object that limits what the Federal government can do.

      And the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated many of those limitations upon the states. In this case, the power of the government can’t be used to interfere with the qualified right of women to choose.

      gitarcarver: There is no Federal law on abortion.

      There are state laws, however. Roe and later decisions found that they had exceeded their authority under the U.S. Constitution.

  4. Jl says:

    This article seems to think it’s baseless, anyway…https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/09/doj-files-baseless-suit-against-texas-over-its-abortion-law.php

  5. Jl says:

    Sorry, link is obviously bad..

Bad Behavior has blocked 9767 access attempts in the last 7 days.