this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1065 points (98.2% liked)

News

23259 readers
2633 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday's meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas' existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 110 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Doesn't this run afoul of the commerce clause?

A random ass County can't ban travel on any roads or highway for any reason, right? That's strictly the job of congress.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also I'd like to add:

How about this worthless board look into why there is so much crime in the county before Talibaning travel for women?

You have a 1 in 92 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Lubbock County compared to a 1 in 220 chance in the rest of Texas

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Board: "that's almost where we want things, let's see if we can pump up those chances"

[–] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My first thought as well. There is NO way this doesn't get struck down in a court case. If you can't even ban guns on streets near schools (US v. Lopez) then you definitely can't ban a person from driving on a road to get to a medical procedure in a different state.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you seen the other decisions made by SCOTUS?

They don't give a shit about consistency or law or precedent. They are politicians put there to deliver specific outcomes.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

They do care about precedent, usually too much in my opinion. There have been many cases in the last few years brought to SCOTUS seeking the overturning of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, but SCOTUS has in all cases either not taken them up or not ruled on that issue. They basically keep saying, "we've already ruled on this, we won't touch it unless Congress changes the law in some way." Dobbs was like the one issue SCOTUS has actually overturned a previous opinion on in recent years.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's not a ban, per se, it "just" opens people up to civil liability. The reason they do it that way is to skirt the Constitution.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My guess is this is what will doom this law, specifically since they're also looking at drugs which are certainly commodities from out of state.

It might also be a prior restraint case depending on if traveling to a women's healthcare provider is protected expression.

Like, the problem for the county here is trying to stop people from doing something they can't prove they're actually going to do.

They might be able to plus up other charges based on using county property in the commission of some other "crime" (gigantic air quotes). Sort of like getting extra charges due to using the USPS to commit a crime.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. They’d have to prove you were specifically going there to get an abortion.

Cops can’t stop you because you were on your way to a bank, just because they feel you might want to rob it. You have to have actually done something illegal in the first place.

[–] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cops can’t stop you because you were on your way to a bank, just because they feel you might want to rob it.

LOL Sure, in theory they can't, but in reality cops do stop people for any made up reason and they can also shoot you for any made up reason without consequence.

And "pro-life" people will support every cop that kills a pregnant woman on that highway.