Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

The trigger of this apocalyptic coverage was an unsigned, one paragraph order in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. At issue is a Texas law that would effectively gut Roe v. Wade by prohibiting abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. After Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, laws were routinely struck down if they barred abortions “viability” round 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law is clearly meant to test the new majority on the Supreme Court in another attempt to overturn Roe. However, the Supreme Court is already set for such a fundamental challenge after it accepted Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The order actually addressed a serious flaw in the challenge brought by pro-choice advocates to the Texas law. The drafters of the law were creative in leaving enforcement of the law to private parties rather than state officials. It allows private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who either providers or “aids or abets” an unlawful abortion and allows for an award of $10,000 if successful in such a challenge.

Of course, such a lawsuit will not immediately end Roe v. Wade. It will be challenged on the very grounds cited by advocates. That includes the question of whether Texas is using private citizens to curtail a constitutional right. Those cases will also lead to judicial review. In the meantime, if any state official tries to curtail constitutionally protected rights, they can be enjoined pending any decision. Federals courts enjoin people, not laws, when there are actions that are being taken to violate the Constitution. This order concerns whether a court can enjoin the law before any final review on the merits. Any challenge to the law could be expedited on appeal.

> The trigger of this apocalyptic coverage was an unsigned, one paragraph order in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. At issue is a Texas law that would effectively gut Roe v. Wade by prohibiting abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. After Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, laws were routinely struck down if they barred abortions “viability” round 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law is clearly meant to test the new majority on the Supreme Court in another attempt to overturn Roe. However, the Supreme Court is already set for such a fundamental challenge after it accepted Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. > The order actually addressed a serious flaw in the challenge brought by pro-choice advocates to the Texas law. The drafters of the law were creative in leaving enforcement of the law to private parties rather than state officials. It allows private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who either providers or “aids or abets” an unlawful abortion and allows for an award of $10,000 if successful in such a challenge. > Of course, such a lawsuit will not immediately end Roe v. Wade. It will be challenged on the very grounds cited by advocates. That includes the question of whether Texas is using private citizens to curtail a constitutional right. Those cases will also lead to judicial review. In the meantime, if any state official tries to curtail constitutionally protected rights, they can be enjoined pending any decision. Federals courts enjoin people, not laws, when there are actions that are being taken to violate the Constitution. This order concerns whether a court can enjoin the law before any final review on the merits. Any challenge to the law could be expedited on appeal.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The argument for abortion comes down to whether someone has the right to do with their body(property) regardless of the fact that a living being is living inside. Right?

Yet, if I own property that an endangered living being lives on, I'm not able to do whatever I want with that property, because that living being is protected by law. Even if I can't see that animal, even if nobody can say it's life on my property is a viable one, I'm barred from developing on my property, to protect that animal.

This same logic should apply.

[–] • 0 pt

The argument for abortion comes down to whether someone has the right to do with their body(property) regardless of the fact that a living being is living inside. Right?

Yet, if I own property that an endangered living being lives on, I'm not able to do whatever I want with that property, because that living being is protected by law. Even if I can't see that animal, even if nobody can say it's life on my property is a viable one, I'm barred from developing on my property, to protect that animal.

This same logic should apply.

I'm not sure those two arguments are equal. Bodily autonomy vs. land rights? Is that what you're saying?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

As far as a governments right to intrude and tell one what to do with their own body or property, yes. I consider the body to be private property. It's a stretch, I know, and no, of course it's not perfectly equal, but it's the best argument with legal precedence I could think of.

That said, I don't think government should have those rights at all. I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, so just keep me and my tax dollars out of it, and let idiots not increase the population. Fine by me. I say planned parenthood has been doing a fine job keeping black numbers down. Let the libs fund them privately and I'm good.

[–] • 1 pt

That said, I don't think government should have those rights at all. I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, so just keep me and my tax dollars out of it, and let idiots not increase the population. Fine by me. I say planned parenthood has been doing a fine job keeping black numbers down. Let the libs fund them privately and I'm good.

You and I are in agreement.

[–] • 1 pt

Allowing citizens to bring lawsuits is what enables this law to work as intended. It doesn't matter how local officials feel, and ends their ability to declare sanctuary cities by refusing enforcement and providing security. It is a deterrent to those who would otherwise ignore the law.