Republican Texas lawmaker introduces bill to kill women who get abortions

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That only becomes an issue if someone's rights are violated.

[Captain Crimson]

Certainly an infuriating publicity stunt, as much politicized partisanship as anything you can lambast the DNC over. That being said, it's perfectly legal right now, despite our own internal opinions. You cannot execute someone for something perfectly legal, they would have to outlaw it first, and no sane person is gonna let that happen. No loving husband will ever let his wife be murdered for that. I would call this exactly what it is, murder, if it came to pass. Ironic for people who claim abortion is murder, but there it is.

[Nealithi]

Isn't this bill automatically invalid due to the phrasing to ignore any federal or court cases saying the other wise? I mean if you could get that through. Why not a bill to announce you are Emperor and no one is allowed to challenge that claim.

I believe the idea (like the Arkansas bill, and the Alabama bill) is to bring something that will result in a suit that can be appealed to the supreme court.

Right, those were attempts to get court cases going. this one has this.

The legislation also directs the state’s attorney general to “direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court decision,”

Which seems like an attempt to build in a you may not argue with this bill/law legally section. Like any bill or law is a magic card or something.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

If somebody picks up an unloaded gun and points it at my head, it's still a terrifying experience even if I know they can't really do anything with it. It's menacing just to see them try.

[Nealithi]

If somebody picks up an unloaded gun and points it at my head, it's still a terrifying experience even if I know they can't really do anything with it. It's menacing just to see them try.

As Chuck commented on the NRA. Treat every gun as if it is loaded. That is not foolish it is wisdom.
My concern is that bit where they claim it cannot be challenged. If by some miracle this travesty passes, that section can be very horrifically abused.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Isn't this bill automatically invalid due to the phrasing to ignore any federal or court cases saying the other wise? I mean if you could get that through. Why not a bill to announce you are Emperor and no one is allowed to challenge that claim.

I believe the idea (like the Arkansas bill, and the Alabama bill) is to bring something that will result in a suit that can be appealed to the supreme court.

Right, those were attempts to get court cases going. this one has this.

The legislation also directs the state’s attorney general to “direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court decision,”

Which seems like an attempt to build in a you may not argue with this bill/law legally section. Like any bill or law is a magic card or something.

It doesn't really work that way. It just has to do with the initial ruling by state enforcement and courts.

[Nealithi]

It doesn't really work that way. It just has to do with the initial ruling by state enforcement and courts.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds on exact wording. My concern is law in this country seems to be based upon precedent to determine what can be done later. So someone including such a proviso in a bill sets off warnings for me no matter the subject. This could be a no Jaywalking bill and that proviso would scare me because of the precedent it sets. What gives me a nightmare is that this being a high profile concept is what got it noticed to even be brought up here. How many bills and laws get passed we never hear of?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It doesn't really work that way. It just has to do with the initial ruling by state enforcement and courts.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds on exact wording. My concern is law in this country seems to be based upon precedent to determine what can be done later. So someone including such a proviso in a bill sets off warnings for me no matter the subject. This could be a no Jaywalking bill and that proviso would scare me because of the precedent it sets. What gives me a nightmare is that this being a high profile concept is what got it noticed to even be brought up here. How many bills and laws get passed we never hear of?

Well to be frank, I think your concerns are most appropriately placed, as this provision is somewhere between most probably and most definitely designed to subvert our democratic system and in overt fashion albeit subtle.

It also happens to be in line with how our system works, just exploitative of the gray area of governance between federal and state legislature. Not breaking the bedrock of our system but bending around it as it can.