U.S. Supreme Court hears Challenges to Texas Abortion Law 

Pretty much rhetorical gobbledygook the moment you realize "the state" isn't an entity, in fact, it does not exist. It's merely a concept at the center of a faith-based belief in the "legitimacy" of rulers, which stems from a very old belief in "the anointed shall rule in the name of God or the gods". Belief in the idea of people acting at the behest of "a state" is no more rational than the belief in the idea of people acting at the behest of Santa Clause. These are people doing irrational and immoral things and deflecting accountability by pretending "the state/government said so, I don't make the laws".

JUSTICE SOTOMAYER REALLY DESPISE THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A THING CALLED INDEPENDENCE AND PEOPLE SHE BELIEVES IS NOT AS "SMART" as her and HER QUESTIONS COME OFF AS "MY STATS AND FACTS REIGNS SUPREME!" what a shame!

​@@177SCmaroSovcit much?

*I know this comment is a year old, I just work in healthcare and wanted to answer it in case anyone else wondered the same thing for any reason* Because you can suponea the office and/or hospital for the medical records and it states in the HIPAA act who is allowed access to said records. Legal authorities have the right to suponea. There's also clauses of "Third Parties" and also signing a consent form which is why you're asked when you visit if there is anyone you want to give consent for to access your records. For example: Car A slams into Car B and Car A goes to the hospital. Car B is found liable for the car accident but their insurance company states that the accident was not severe enough to cause the injuries that Car A says the endured. They can suponea the hospital to get Car A's medical record and review the ER visit. If Car A said they had a broken leg, but on the medical record in the ER the doctors notes/the x rays state that there is no broken leg, Car A's request to pay that medical bill gets thrown out for any amounts related to broken legs. OR If you're the patient you're legally allowed to your medical record, and not just your e-chart medical record. You have the legal right for all notes, charts, images, etc which is why let's say if you got an xray and the results come up, but not the images on your e-chart, you can write the hospital to request the actual pictures from it for your records no matter if they found something or not.

Exactly

Yup. That's why Kavanaugh keeps bringing up how this same crap could be pulled to take away our guns

@@camwyn256 I’m strongly pro life, but using that logic, I would likely be skeptical about the law too

Perhaps that's the point. It should be about the ethics of killing the unborn, not about whatever the government calls "a law" this week?

The Dobbs case from Mississippi is the real beef in this section of law.

The more the liberals get their way the more the country as a whole loses

Yeah don’t ever call yourself “conservative”, you sanction the death of innocent life because it’s unwanted.

@@meonlybro A fair point. They will NEVER stop.

Glad to hear it. Abortion should not be a political issue. I may not support it (not saying I do or don't,) but I am a man, and therefore have no right to make a decision for women. But more importantly, this law threatens all of our constitutional rights. Not just abortion-- this could theoretically apply to speech, religion, etc. Also: meonlybro, come on man. This attitude it what's wrong with America. These labels we slap on people-- liberal, conservative, democratic, republican-- all it does is polarize our country. Not all liberal ideas are good: but a lot are. Same for conservative. The ISSUE is polarization, missinformation, lack of belief in science (and politicalization of scientific fact) and the inability for Americans to compromise, or even listen to the other side.

Abortion is the physical and tangible arm of socialism. It is population control and a different type of conservatism that is fascism. The original Republican movement of the 1850's and anti-Masons would never have condoned abortion.

Were do you get your news from? CBS CNN MSNBC PBS?

I don't live in Texas, however if a was one of the judges, I would be one that would allow Texas law is to remain in effect. The abortion rights question remains to be answered by state and local governments, not US government level. The reason for this is because as per the 10th amendment to the constitution, things not directly addressed in the constitution is to go back to the states. If read the constitution and the amendments there is no wording regarding abortions, yet there is wording in the constitution regarding the protection of life. Medical research show through current technology such as ultrasounds, has proven that a child is a child from conception foward. This might to extreme for most, so states at large are going with heartbeat bill as where states at that point foward has an vested interest in protecting them just like it does with all its citizens.

@@bestproto5117 OP is demonstrating an acute understanding of the national implications at hand, which include blue states placing a de facto bans on guns using a similar law that Texas placed on abortions. Allowing Texas to defy federal authority to this degree would set a disastrous precedent that is bad for both liberals and conservatives. Kavanaugh mentions this point, in fact. Did you even bother to watch the video before deciding to write idiotic comments?

@@michaelcarter7079 Try to actually understand SB 8 (the Texas law in question) and what it entails before blindly supporting it because you care so much about fetal matter. The Court isn't concerned about the constitutionality of abortion. This case is solely concerned with the question of "Should Texas be allowed to use the tactics it is using to evade federal review?" Texas knows it cannot ban abortions by law since it would violate Roe v Wade, so it's essentially employing private citizens as bounty hunters to enforce the ban through lawsuits while arguing in bad faith that the state has no involvement in the process (since all the enforcement is done by private citizens) and is thus not in violation of Roe (which is solely concerned with the actions of the state). Allowing this law to stand would open a can of worms that would lead to an avalanche of constitutional violations across the country. If this precedent is set, who can stop, say, California from using similar tactics to ban the unvaccinated from ever going church again for the rest of their lives, and then arguing that there's no state violation of the First Amendment since all the enforcement is done by private citizens? What about forcing all churches and pastors in the state to officiate same-sex marriages? Or outlawing the mere act of speaking negatively about same-sex marriage in church? What about banning guns? These can all be easily done using the Texan method. Nobody here cares about "protection of life" or fetal heartbeats. It's all utterly irrelevant to this case. This is about protecting the constitution itself and the structural integrity of our judicial system.

@@bluewin13Thanks for the comments. It reallly did help. What is not mentioned though is Roe VS Wade was a court decision that wasn't settled by the legislature. It was purely made up decision by the US supreme court in 1973 with no legally bound documents to support this decision. The constitution and the declaration of independence talks alot about the protection of life however. Because of this since the decision was not settled, Texas and any other state can come up with its own laws regarding abortions and woman health issues per the 10th amendment stating that questions not addressed by our founding documents are delegated to the states and local governments. This was the intentions of the leaders who signed our constitution that states is were the political power was to concentrated not at the national level. Roe vs wade decision was exact opposite of this position of legislative and historical US documents in that this decision was stripped from the states and is treated differently with special privileges not offered to other laws and causes that do have constitutional rights to be addressed. Over turning ROE vs wade will rebalance this and protect women at large. Even if my understanding is incorrect, it is far better to error on the side of life, than the side of death. Abortion rights is not protected at the US level constitutionally as is the right to free speech and to come together peacefully, or the right to bare arms, the right to fair and impartial justice, the right of private property to not be searched without probable cause. These decisions mentioned above and others were addressed in the constitution so states are legally bound to adhere to these rights. That's why I don't think the argument you are making holds any water. Now if Abortion rights were addressed in our legal documents, then your statement would hold water and my argument would collapse on itself. The reason for this back and forth with this position is in direct response to unanswered questions by our legislature not addressing issue through legal protocols. Courts are not to because a second legislature branch, it is to interpret laws and historical documents to answer legal questions. This was not the case with abortion and so US supreme court dosen't have jurisdiction over this matter.

I do not think killing children is a human right

@@kqatsi Don't change the subject. Don't interject what does not apply. Procedural is different, ie; Missing law citation,relevant paragraphs, etc. But, It's not in any Clerk's preview to simply refuse a legal filing which cites law simply bcz the suit doesn't align with his/her politics and personal beliefs. That's what the feds are asking for; that ANY law suit should be subject to and must be approved by personal opinion of Clerk.

Which is why they go after state judges and clerks.

@@kqatsi A Clerk works for the state or state entity. Clerk's obligation is to State Law, State Constitution. The Clerk is neither hired for, or determined at hire to be qualified or to decide if a State law is in line with the US Constitution. Its above clerk's payscale. That's what the attorney who prepared the case and a judge/court are for. If Clerks can decide what reaches a court or doesn't, under what parameters?.. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment is a main consideration. States formed the federal govt. and are sovereign, independent and not subject to federal law that is not in the constitution. And then by decimating separation of powers... as if any random person can decide whatever. (!??) You should listen close to what the justices say in the beginning of this hearing. You might learn something.

@@kqatsi You're the one not understanding what's going on. The Federal court does not have this jurisdiction. In fact, no court has. For the simple reason that all suits will then be equally affected.

@@kqatsi You better spit shine your crystal ball.

As far as government and politics is concerned that appears to be the case, unfortunately. If fetuses could vote abortion would be outlawed tomorrow.

Im not an expert in the law so i don't get this mess I thought this was a lawsuit between the federal government and Texas Why is there third parties in this ? And what is the court going to do? Are they going to decide whether the law is constitutional? Or are they going to decide whether the federal government has the right to sue

They are attempting to see if the federal government will intervene on this legislative enactment. That drug policy is having detrimental effects on individual lives that being portrayed as one sided because of taxation on goods. The states Department of Insurance and Department of Banking should have enough information to give the rest of the states a clear indication of the effects this policy is having. The law has barely gone into effect less than 60 days and people are already complaining on the states “governance” over individual rights. All the state is doing is telling people they cannot remove a living fetus from their body after 6 weeks. I just feel like there are other states that are removing issues from the United States Supreme Court that are a greater detriment to the majority of the population and not just one gender.

24 weeks is the point at which doctors will take steps in an attempt to save a premature baby. Prior to that the premature baby, even with extreme medical intervention will not survive.

There’s never video recordings from the Supreme Court

@@whatthefrickbro Ik. Maybe someday that will change

So is prostitution, murder , genocide, theft, its always been around is a fact of history but not an improvement of ethos.

@@laurahamer9165 But those other practices you listed have nothing to do with family planning. Parents have the right to decide when they want to have children and how many they want to care for.

I am all for abortion and against this bill but I am for the bill if the women are given more time. You cant abort once a fetus starts developing a proper brain,it's murder after that.

So was slavery. That doesn't make it rational or moral to enslave anyone. That something is old doesn't make it rational or moral.

@@Someone-nv1cj It's murder from conception. The fact that a human does not yet have a fully formed or functional brain doesn't make them not human.

Keep roleplaying, as if they bother reading the RU-vid comment section

Decide by 3 or 5. If not 7 in a given day or night.

To get into my business office without respecting my mother's authority as president of housekeeping as a Catholic saint. With strip clubs as well.

Just to procreate overnight to be cheated on after engagément. A crazy obsession to keep running Vegas with my permission lacking respects as a boss for my affirmative action

Bro quit making ELEVEN COMMENTS talking about shit you know nothing about and learn how to spell "constitution" before pretending like you're smart

Freedom to murder children in the womb yes. Most definitely

@@megaMagaManX8 a fetus is attached to the uterus, and the uterus is connected to the woman. She has the right to remove part of her body. It's a constitutional right under "Right of Privacy" which is under "Due Process". 14th Amendment. Look it up.

@@trufflesrheaven nope

That is not the legal question

@@johnlove2954 looks like someone failed their first year biology classes

The court resumed in-person arguments

Learn to spell and how to put a sentence together properly. You're not helping your cause by being illiterate.

no, they can talk to their own personal attorneys. This is the supreme court, not a townhall meeting.

@@aloysiuspendergast7221 Then the Supreme Court has to change.

Nang seng none free choose her future husbsnd by herself .

I’m praying to God SB8 stays! Plz Lord Jesus Christ! 🙏

What is a stay? Will they block it or allow it to move forward??????

they will block it, as the law poses potential for further authoritarian laws made by the state of texas. most people dont even find out their pregnant till 6 weeks, texas is attempting to find a loophole in the existing law that the court has already declared to be legal.