Thursday, September 02, 2021

ANS -- Brad Hicks on the new Texas anti-abortion law, and Civil War

Here is a Facebook post (by Brad Hicks) and subsequent conversation on the topic of Texas' new anti-woman law. Part of this is about whether this will lead to a Civil War.  Read it.  
A couple of quotes: 
    "So let's say a doctor in California sees a woman via telemedicine, and sends a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol to a mail-order pharmacy anywhere (let's say, here in St. Louis even) and they overnight it to her. Under Texas law, any Texan who figures out that she did this can sue her, the tele-doc, and whoever packaged it up at the mail-order pharmacy for $10,000 each, plus whatever it costs to subpoena the records proving it and any other legal expenses. $30k pure profit." and, from Charles Haines, "Overnight, Texas has gone from a state to just another abusive relationship."

--Kim


The Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect yesterday, that the US Supreme Court refused to even temporarily block, would be monstrous if only because abortion is a routine medical procedure needed by 1 in 3 women that is safer than some dental procedures, that does not kill a human being no matter who told you otherwise, and is nobody's business but hers. For that reason alone, it's monstrous. But there's more, because the Texas legislature thought they were being clever, too clever by half.
The normal way that unconstitutional laws are struck down is that someone who fears losing their rights can sue the government official who will be responsible for enforcing the law, asking the courts for an injunction barring its enforcement on constitutional grounds. To make it impossible for women, or their doctors, to overturn this law, they came up with a new evil design: enforcement will be left up to freelance mercenaries, who will be paid $10,000 plus expenses, by Texas courts out of the pockets of the accused, for every woman and every abortionist they successfully identify.
So let's say a doctor in California sees a woman via telemedicine, and sends a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol to a mail-order pharmacy anywhere (let's say, here in St. Louis even) and they overnight it to her. Under Texas law, any Texan who figures out that she did this can sue her, the tele-doc, and whoever packaged it up at the mail-order pharmacy for $10,000 each, plus whatever it costs to subpoena the records proving it and any other legal expenses. $30k pure profit.
So yeah, that's evil because using mercenaries for law enforcement is evil, but think it through one more step. Is a Missouri court going to enforce that subpoena, and if they do figure out which pharmacist in St. Louis packed the envelope, will they enforce the $10k+ judgment? I doubt it. Will California enforce those Texas court orders against the tele-medicine practice? Almost certainly not.
Which makes this a good time to review the history of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, because abolitionist states refusing to obey federal court orders to enforce slave-state court orders when they ruled that some northern residents were still slaves? Was why South Carolina and the other states seceded when they did, seeking to close the border the only way they could.
If there's going to be a civil war in America over abortion -- something I've feared might be coming for a long time now, frankly -- we'll remember this week as the week that made it happen. And the second civil war may well be fought with nukes. And even if it isn't, this would be a good time for you to also review the before-and-after photos from Alepo, Syria to see what urban warfare looks like in this century; urban warfare the way it's fought today makes what Sherman did to Atlanta look like a picnic in the park.
It's also clear that the 6-vote anti-freedom, pro-southern majority on the current Supreme Court are either not thinking about this, or else they think that despite the fact that the anti-freedom southern and central states are still much poorer than the pro-freedom northern and coastal states, this war would turn out better for them. It won't. It'll turn out the same way, for the same reason: the anti-freedom states will run out of money, and have no useful foreign allies, just like the last time. The only difference will be that this time, the death and devastation will be much greater.
77
9 Comments
3 Shares
Nancy Lebovitz
  • I'm expecting some anti-abortion women who think *their* abortion is different are going to get doxed. It's not much consolation, but I'm looking forward to it.
    3
    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 5h
  • Charles Haines
    Actually, it was 5-4. Roberts voted with the liberal side. I don't know if that's because he actually opposed this barbaric measure or if he knew the other conservatives would and wanted to maintain the perception of impartiality.
    1
    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 4h
    • Elizabeth Osborne Fischer
      Charles Haines He is the only Conservative on the court that says away from overturning precedent, and he knows an end run was done around him. He's likely pissed.
      • Like
      •  · 
        Reply
      •  · 4h
    • Charles Haines
      If so, he ought to be getting disillusioned with strict constructionism, realizing it was just a way to gain power.
      • Like
      •  · 
        Reply
      •  · 2h
  • Charles Haines
    Everything I write here is just my best guess, of course, no matter how convincing I make it sound.
    I don't think this issue is like slavery. That's just bragging and bluster. I think it's most like Prohibition.
    I always thought Republicans had a great issue to run on with abortion. That is, until the day they won. Maintaining institutional illegality will most definitely NOT be a popular thing, and there will be no delusions of saintliness in it. What happened to all the prohibitionists after they won? I hope this works itself out faster than prohibition did.
    And I think, in many ways large and small, Texas is going to be punished by the rest of the nation, and internationally because of this. I hope they see an exodus of women out of there, but that's up to the women.  
    Abortion became legal because people who lived then hated all the secrecy, danger, and shame the illegality necessitated. America had been a very censorious culture until the 1960s. When the censorship about social issues and sex collapsed, people could see that they had to change the laws. The culture of censorship most definitely can't come back.
    People have noted how anomalous this "fetus liberation" movement is for the culture that's asserting it, the same legacy of confederate machos that fought for slavery, imposed Jim Crow; the same one that aches for warfare and tolerates child poverty, itches to execute criminals, and despises government interference. Yes, ultimately, this dissonance will crumble.
    Although Texas has brought financial incentives into it, it's not like the Civil War. The social and economic system of half the country isn't dependent on the fate of fetuses.
    The demographics here are all wrong for a war. The median age of white males now is something north of fifty, and a very unhealthy middle age at that. For Christian Nationalists, it's even older. They might shoot or bomb somebody, or even put in a hard day rioting, but they're not in any condition to fight an all-out war.
    They might boast and posture and bluster about it, but when it comes to putting their lives, livelihood, comfort, and privilege on the line, they'll begin to realize they don't give a shit about fetuses. Especially when no fetuses thank them.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)