Roe vs Wade overturned

If you follow the polling data on it, Americans like 14ish 15ish week bans preceeded by open access. Like the Mississippi law was. Unless I'm mistaken. This does split Republicans. They aren't in lockstep. This even splits the MAGAs. I'm doubling down on my assessment of the moment.
 
Last edited:
Interesting spin. I don't think it takes any extremists at all to do nothing. It only takes cowards.
As I often say, extremism and cowardice are definitely mutually compatible.
 
If you follow the polling data on it, Americans like 14ish 15ish week bans preceeded by open access. Like the Mississippi law was. Unless I'm mistaken. This does split Republicans. They aren't in lockstep. This even splits the MAGAs. I'm doubling down on my assessment of the moment.

1 of Mississipi's laws regarding abortion. The other bans all abortions except when the mother’s life is at risk or when the pregnancy resulted from a rape that has been reported to law enforcement. That is due to take effect from 07/07/22.

https://mississippitoday.org/2022/06/29/mississippi-abortion-faq/

edit: Mississippi's only abortion clinic has now closed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62082595
 
Right, but the one that triggered the whole thing. Which is now obsolete.
 
Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe
By Timothy Bella
Updated July 9, 2022 at 1:58 p.m. EDT

A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger, and that she should not have been cited.

Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”

“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”
Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her “baby girl is right here,” Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not. “One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ I said,” she explained to the Dallas Morning News, the first to report the story. Bottone was issued a $215 ticket for driving alone in the two-or-more occupant lane — a citation she told local media she’d be challenging in court this month.

“I will be fighting it,” Bottone, 32, of Plano, Tex., said to The Post.

While the Texas Department of Transportation has not indicated whether it is weighing changing the transportation code, Bottone’s case is one that could move the state into “unchartered territory” following the June 24 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Chad Ruback, a Dallas-based appellate attorney, told The Post.

“I find her argument creative, but I don’t believe based on the current itineration of Texas Transportation Code that her argument would likely succeed in front of an appellate court,” he said. “That being said, it’s entirely possible she could find a trial court judge who would award her for her creativity.” Ruback added, “This is a very unique situation in American jurisprudence.”

Representatives for the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department and Texas Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The news comes as all corners of the country are dealing with the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision more than two weeks ago. President Biden delivered an emotional speech Friday announcing an array of steps aimed at bolstering abortion rights, responding to growing demands from activists that he take bolder and more forceful action. Biden signing an executive order to enhance access to reproductive health-care services was a move generally welcomed by abortion activists, but many said it would likely do little for women in states where abortion is banned. The president acknowledged the limits of his executive powers, saying the Dobbs ruling was “the Supreme Court’s terrible, extreme and, I think, so totally wrongheaded decision.”

“What we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment,” Biden said. “It was an exercise in raw political power.”

Texas is among the 13 states that had “trigger bans” designed to take effect once Roe was struck down, prohibiting abortions within 30 days of the ruling. It is Texas’s nearly century-old abortion ban that was ruled unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe on June 24 in a 5-4 decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) advised that prosecutors could now enforce the 1925 law, which he described as “100% good law” on Twitter. Abortion rights groups and clinics sued, arguing that it should be interpreted as repealed and unenforceable.

A judge in Harris County, Tex., granted a temporary order last month to allow clinics to offer abortions for at least two weeks without criminal prosecution. Judge Christine Weems (D) ruled that a pre-Roe ban enforced by Paxton and prosecutors would “inevitably and irreparably chill the provision of abortions in the vital last weeks in which safer abortion care remains available and lawful in Texas.”

But the Texas Supreme Court granted an “emergency motion for temporary relief” of Weems’s ruling last week, after Paxton requested the injunction. Five days after the Dobbs ruling, Bottone said she was in a rush to pick up her 6-year-old son and decided to drive her GMC Yukon into the HOV lane since she “couldn’t be a minute late.”

As she attempted to argue the fetus was her second passenger, Bottone told The Post that the deputy wasn’t open to the debate. “I thought it was weird and said, ‘With everything that’s going on, especially in Texas, this counts as a baby,’” she said. “He kind of waved me on and said, ‘This officer will take care of you.’” Bottone said that while one of the deputies told her that the ticket would likely get dropped if she fought it, she’s upset that the citation was issued in the first place.

“I thought it was a waste of my time. It just rubbed me wrong,” she said. “I don’t think it was right.” Bottone emphasized that while she believes women should have a choice on what they do with their bodies, “that’s not saying I’m also pro-choice.” She noted that she also drove in the HOV lane when she was pregnant with her first child, her 6-year-old son.

Ruback told The Post that he is not aware whether Texas or other states would consider such a change to their transportation codes. “It’s entirely possible that Brandy could petition the representatives in legislature to make that change, but I have not heard about it if it happened,” said Ruback, who is not involved in her case. “My impression is that I think she would be happy if she got out of her traffic ticket. Then again, these are unusual times we’re living in, that’s for sure.”

Bottone maintained to The Post that she hoped the Texas laws would be consistent on how the measures recognize unborn children. “The laws don’t speak the same language, and it’s all been kind of confusing, honestly,” she said.
She’s due in court on July 20, which is only two weeks before her daughter’s due date of Aug. 3.

“It wasn’t because of Roe v. Wade that I hopped in the HOV lane,” she said. “I just thought of it as me and another person.”
 
As soon as pregnant women can drive in HOV lanes, then there will be a run on pillows that make one look pregnant. Next step: cops feeling women's bellies or carrying proof of pregnancy.

Or better yet: cops having to ask women: are you pregnant or just fat? That will go over big I'm sure.
 
As soon as pregnant women can drive in HOV lanes, then there will be a run on pillows that make one look pregnant. Next step: cops feeling women's bellies or carrying proof of pregnancy.

Or better yet: cops having to ask women: are you pregnant or just fat? That will go over big I'm sure.
Pregnant women are not going to be allowed to drive in HOV lanes
 
Sort of a shame.
 
Or just not drive at all


@Sommerswerd put it best, somewhat recently.
My point, is that the reason measures like this won't work, is that the Conservatives on the SCOTUS will simply ignore the logic, and concoct some tortured reasoning to achieve the result they want, which is abortion restricted, [but fetuses have no other rights]. They aren't going to allow [pregnant women] to "gotcha" them with the logic of their bad decisions.
 
I set up a corporation and keep the stock certificate representing full ownership of the corporation in my car and use it as the second person when I get pulled over by the coppers for driving in the HOV lane.

Most minor traffic offenses are classified as Class C misdemeanors which is the lowest level of sanction that Sting, Andy Summers, or Stewart Copeland can issue.

I spent Saturday at a protest in downtown Dallas with a lady friend. I found out how out of touch I was with the kids on my lawn I was when, pre-March, I was exposed to "Wobble" and later found out it was over a decade old instead of the latest iteration of the Hustle.:old:
 
Off to the Hauge, I guess.
 
Texas "Freedom" Caucus:

Mission Statement
We recognize that the United States was founded upon the truth that our unalienable rights are given to us by God, that government is instituted by God to protect those rights while deriving its authority from the people, and that the U.S. and Texas Constitutions are the guiding limits on government action. Recognizing this truth, the Texas Freedom Caucus is founded in the Texas House of Representatives with a mission to amplify the voice of liberty-minded, grassroots Texans who want bold action to protect life, strengthen families, defend the U.S. and Texas Bills of Rights, restrain government, and revitalize personal and economic freedoms in the State of Texas.
https://www.freedomfortexas.com/about/

Letter to an international law firm operating in Texas:

It has come to our attention that Sidley Austin has decided to reimburse the travel costs of employees who leave Texas to murder their unborn children. It also appears that Sidley has been complicit in illegal abortions that were performed in Texas before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392. We are writing to inform you of the consequences that you and your colleagues will face for these actions.

Abortion is a felony criminal offense in Texas unless the mother’s life is in danger. See West’s Texas Civil Statutes, article 4512.1 (1974) (attached). The law of Texas also imposes felony criminal liability on any person who “furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended.” West’s Texas Civil Statutes, article 4512.2 (1974). This has been the law of Texas since 1925, and Texas did not repeal these criminal prohibitions in response to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). These criminal prohibitions extend to drug-induced abortions if any part of the drug regimen is ingested in Texas, even if the drugs were dispensed by an out-of-state abortionist. To the extent that Sidley is facilitating abortions performed in violation of article 4512.1, it is exposing itself and each of its partners to felony criminal prosecution and disbarment.

We will also be introducing legislation next session that will impose additional civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortions or abortion travel. The legislation that we will introduce will include each of the following provisions.

First. It will prohibit any employer in Texas from paying for elective abortions or reimbursing abortion-related expenses—regardless of where the abortion occurs, and regardless of the law in the jurisdiction where the abortion occurs. This provision will impose felony criminal sanctions on anyone who pays for these abortions to ensure that it remains enforceable against self-insured plans as a generally applicable criminal law.

Second. It will allow private citizens to sue anyone who pays for an elective abortion performed on a Texas resident, or who pays for or reimburses the costs associated with these abortions—regardless of where the abortion occurs, and regardless of the law in the jurisdiction where the abortion occurs. This provision will be modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Act and its private civil-enforcement mechanism.

Third. It will require the State Bar of Texas to disbar any lawyer who has violated article 4512.2 by “furnishing the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended,” or who violates any other abortion statute enacted by the Texas legislature. If the State Bar fails to disbar an attorney who has violated these laws, then any member of the public may sue the officers of the State Bar and obtain a writ of mandamus compelling them to impose the required disciplinary sanctions.

Fourth. The legislation that we will introduce next session will empower district attorneys from throughout the state to prosecute abortion-related crimes—including violations of article 4512.2 of the Revised Civil Statutes—when the local district attorney fails or refuses to do so. It will also eliminate the three-year statute of limitations that currently applies to violations of article 4512.2. The state of Texas will ensure that you and colleagues are held accountable for every abortion that you illegally assisted.

It also appears that Sidley may have aided or abetted drug-induced abortions in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act, by paying for abortions (or abortion-related travel) in which the patient ingested the second drug in Texas after receiving the drugs from an out-of-state provider. Litigation is already underway to uncover the identity of those who aided or abetted these and other illegal abortions. In light of this pending litigation, as well as any anticipated litigation that might ensue, you and your colleagues at Sidley must preserve and retain all documents, data, and electronically stored information relating in any way to: (1) Any abortions performed or induced in Texas on or after September 1, 2021, in which a fetal heartbeat was detectable (or likely to be detectable if tested), including any such abortions that occurred while Judge Pitman’s injunction was in effect from October 6–8, 2021; (2) Any abortions performed or induced in Texas on or after June 24, 2022, including abortions performed while Judge Weems’s TRO was in effect from June 28, 2022, through July 1, 2022; (3) Any abortion that occurred on or after September 1, 2021, if there is any possibility that the patient might have opted for a drug-induced abortion and ingested either of the abortion drugs in Texas, even if the drugs were dispensed by a provider outside the state of Texas; and (4) The identity of any person or entity who has aided or abetted the abortions described in (1) – (3), including anyone at your firm, and anyone who paid for or in any way reimbursed the costs of those abortions. litigation hold letter — sidley austin llp

You and your colleagues must preserve these items regardless of the medium, format, or device on which they are stored or hosted, and regardless of whether they appear in documents, drafts, notes, calendar entries, emails, text messages, voicemails, social-media posts, or any other form. Failure to preserve these documents could subject you and your colleagues to significant penalties.

Conduct yourselves accordingly.
https://www.freedomfortexas.com/uploads/blog/3b118c262155759454e423f6600e2196709787a8.pdf

I can't wait for this legislation to pass. I am going to sue every conservative lawyer that has terminated a conceived corporate entity (aka fetus of a person) before it was born via the filing of an articles of incorporation. I will also ask tat each and every one of them be disbarred.
 
Can you pro-choice lawyers do a little moot together and determine if that's viable, like really viable?
I only note how useful it is to have advocacy groups lock-and-loaded with credentialed people. Post-hoc protests don't nearly have the same success rate.

You might be able to kill Citizen's United!
 
Texas "Freedom" Caucus:

https://www.freedomfortexas.com/about/

Letter to an international law firm operating in Texas:

https://www.freedomfortexas.com/uploads/blog/3b118c262155759454e423f6600e2196709787a8.pdf

I can't wait for this legislation to pass. I am going to sue every conservative lawyer that has terminated a conceived corporate entity (aka fetus of a person) before it was born via the filing of an articles of incorporation. I will also ask tat each and every one of them be disbarred.

Are you the lawyer behind https://www.loweringthebar.net by chance? The likelihood of two lawyers both having coherent and snarky senses (sensi?) of humor seems fairly low to me.
 
Can I shoot corporations for advertisements unwantedly showing up on my property, castle doctrine style?
 
Last edited:
Are you the lawyer behind https://www.loweringthebar.net by chance? The likelihood of two lawyers both having coherent and snarky senses (sensi?) of humor seems fairly low to me.
Not me. Most of my snark occurs here and hidden in the parts of my legal filings that I think the judge won't read.
 
Back
Top Bottom