Texas’s “heartbeat law” has been temporarily blocked by a federal courtThis controversial statute bans abortion once the fetal activity of the heart can be detected. It allows individuals to sue others who may have assisted or performed an abortion. Senate Bill (S.B. 8—which took effect September 1—has already spawned several lawsuits and an appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene. SCOTUS ruled that the law could not be enforced because it was written with private suits and state action as enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice sued the law.
This is the final phase. The federal government has been supported by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The court dismissed Texas’ October 6 motion for dismissal and approved the emergency motion by the feds for a temporary or preliminary injunction. S.B. 8. is currently on hold pending the outcome of legal proceedings.
“From now S.B. S.B. went into effect, For women Those who were unlawfully prohibited from exercising their rights You have complete control of your life.These are the s The Protected by Constitution,” said the court.Another court may decide otherwise This conclusion can be avoided by using theirThis is the final decision CWe won’t. Sanction One more day This Offensive deprivation of This is a great thing!It is possible to Right“
The decision of the District Court is quite critical of Texas from the beginning. PERsON«You can find it here You have the right to request an abortion under the ConstitutionConception before the fetal Viability has been establishedIt states that. “Fully conscious This is how it deprives its citizens of the rigThe direct state’s action against ht would be unconstitutional. [Texas]”Constructed a unique and transparent scheme of statutory legislation to accomplish exactly that.”
Many of Texas’ arguments to dismiss the lawsuit were dismissed by the court. This included the argument that because it was unable to show sufficient injury, the federal government wasn’t entitled. “Insofar S.B. “Insofar as S.B.Abortion can only be performed by a woman who is able to conceive.–related services mandated by regulations, statutes, and case law, the United States has met its burden to demonstrate a concrete, particularized, and actual injury,” states the court’s decision. “By imposing damages liability of $10,000 or more on any person performing, inducing, aiding, or abetting an abortion, S.B. 8 exposes the federal government, its employees, and its contractors to monetary injury.”
Furthermore, the court says that “The United States argues that it has a ‘profound sovereign interest’ in vindicating its citizens [sic] constitutional rights and ensuring those rights ‘remain redeemable in federal court.'”
“When, as here, a state appears to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a scheme designed to evade federal judicial review, the United States possesses sovereign interest in preventing such a harm,” the court continued.
As to whether the feds have a cause of action, the court notes that “S.B. 8 was deliberately crafted to avoid redress through the courts. Yet it is this very unavailability of redress that makes an injunction the proper remedy—indeed, the only remedy for this clear constitutional violation,” it says:
No cause of action created by Congress is necessary to sustain the United States’ action; rather, traditional principles of equity allow the United States to seek an injunction to protect its sovereign rights, and the fundamental rights of its citizens under the circumstances present here.
As to whether a precedent related to interstate commerce applies—Texas argued it didn’t, in part because its abortion restrictions were stimulating interstate commerce—the court says:
The particular features of S.B. 8 burden interstate commerce even beyond the impacts of traditional legislation. By extending liability to persons anywhere in the country, S.B. 8‘s structure all but ensures that it will implicate commerce across state lines—whether through insurance companies reimbursing Texas abortions, banks processing payments, medical device suppliers outfitting providers, or persons transporting patients to their appointments.
In addition to imposing liability on those coming into Texas, the law has also already had the effect of pushing individuals seeking abortions into other states. This stream of individuals across state lines burdens clinics in nearby states and impedes pregnant
individuals in surrounding states from accessing abortions due to backlogs. These harms to interstate commerce are independently sufficient to support the United States’ right to sue in this case.
Altogether, the court’s findings “lead it to conclude that the United States is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. It is substantially likely that S.B. 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment, whether as an unconstitutional pre–viability abortion ban, or as an unconstitutional undue burden on pre–viability abortion,” the court writes. “It is also substantially likely that S.B. 8 unconstitutionally interferes with principles of preemption and intergovernmental immunity.”
Agents of the Texas government are now barred from enforcing the law, “including accepting or docketing, maintaining, hearing, resolving, awarding damages in, enforcing judgments in, enforcing any administrative penalties in, and administering any lawsuit brought pursuant to [it].”
Twitter has started adding trigger warnings to some discussions. Underneath some tweets appears a “Heads Up” alert that says “Conversations like this can be intense.”
So far, the results are…interesting.
Twitter is testing several new prompts “that warn before you jump into a conversation that could get heated,” notes The Verge:
In one example, there’s a prompt dropped right into a conversation in progress that says “conversations like this can be intense.” In another, which seems like it appears if you try to reply to one of those intense conversations, is titled “let’s look out for each other” and lays out three bullet points to encourage empathetic and fact-based conversations.…One other prompt, for example, warns you before you tweet something that might be offensive.
Good news for food freedom:
THIS is what social change through #ImpactLitigation looks like.
— Dan Alban (@DanAlban) October 6, 2021
• The government may start defaulting on Social Security payments if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling.
If you were born between the 11th and 20th of a month, and the feds default, your Social Security will be the first to be delayed. @alyssafowers on the bizarre and impossible decisions that must be made if the U.S. defaults and the goverment unravelshttps://t.co/83eJLnFikx pic.twitter.com/itSzCw4eud
— Andrew Van Dam (@andrewvandam) October 6, 2021
• The DOJ is launching a new National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.
• “The World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it is recommending the approval of the Mosquirix malaria vaccine,” Ron Bailey reports.
• U.S. collected more thYou can find more information atn $76 billion in tariffs in August. “That«You can find it here an amount that Exceeds even the highest single-month total during the Trump administration and one that dwarves monthly tariff revenue from earlier years,” notes Eric Boehm
• New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may run for state governor. Not everye on his side is so thrilled. “Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio,” Rich Schaffer, chairman of the county’s Democratic committee, told The New York Time