Jump to content

Talk:Texas Heartbeat Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElderHap (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 10 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Under Construction

TODO: Public reactions, political reactions, international reactions, protest events, legal analysis. Miserlou (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's a good bit better than it was before. I'd still like to get some international reactions. Anything else people think it's missing? Miserlou (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Right to Life

What is the provenance of this PAC?

https://www.texasrighttolifepac.com/

kencf0618 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Suggestions

Thank you for updating this page so quickly after it went into action, unfortunately. With this being said, I am curious about the conditions that allowed for this bill to be passed in the first place. While the article discusses some reaction, I am curious into a more in depth look at the political, social, and historical factors that fed into this.

Furthermore, Dan Crenshaw's opinion is mentioned but what about that of Republicans? How polarizing is this bill amongst that group? I read this interesting article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/texas-republicans-abortion-ban-backfire/619956/) which describes the ways it could potentially backfire upon Texas Republicans. Here, (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/09/02/florida-lawmakers-suggest-theyll-copy-texas-abortion-ban-and-other-gop-states-will-likely-follow/?sh=6b9826201bdf) it seems that other states are trying to mimic Texan law.

Besides those things, amazing job -- look forward to reading more! Homedpo (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm reading most activist corporations are staying silent over the law as they don't want to offend customers and the pro-life v pro-abortion issue is highly emotive. The Republican side appear to think the legislation an unexceptional piece paralleling Democrat efforts in other areas. Democrats and the Left in general appear to see it as some sort of fascist totalitarian tyranny and Taliban type oppression of women, except the Taliban aren't always bad because they've been working with Biden or something. It gets a mite confusing!!!
While I'm seeing a lot of coverage of Left\Far Left opposition to the bill, I'm not really seeing anything other than a Dan Crenshaw quote in the Legal challenges, Reactions, Protests, or Political reactions sections. I'm not sure if that's because the MSM aren't reporting those angles (https://www.foxnews.com/media/news-outlets-react-to-texas-abortion-law) or contributors haven't bothered to add such. I don't expect it'll be difficult to find some coverage to provide a modicum of balance. As for the legislation being unique, I may be mistaken but I thought I'd read that it actually parallels Democrat environmental legislation. I don't recall the details or where I read that so I may be mistaken. Apart from adding a little balance, and I'll stay hands off for a bit, the only significant thing likely worth adding are the court decisions and appeals when they start happening.人族 (talk)
Looking forward to the balance, 人族. Best regards to ya!ElderHap (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be published best to communicate that the Act threatens to punish those who intend to aid in the killing of a child who is being borne in utero by the child's mother? I see a lot of references that characterize the Act as an adverse type of threatening. As a former assistant District Attorney, I was sworn to uphold the peace and dignity of the state, which included prosecuting the deterrent effects of the state's criminal laws. I worked to disincentivize acts that were adverse to society by imposing the threat of punishment. Since many people publicly oppose the adverse nature of abortion, this law is seen by them as promoting society's interest in life, which is the first in the list of constitutional pursuits, i.e., life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.ElderHap (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a wiki to affirm your worldview, you may appreciate visiting here instead: https://conservapedia.com/Main_Page This is an encyclopedia, we only report the facts. Miserlou (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Facts reported. Some republishing of opinion in the article is expected but should be qualified as such. Not pursuing your opinion of objects worthy of appreciation, just the facts. Best regards!ElderHap (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "your" source's one reference to the law's status as a "de facto ban" begins with the sentence, "Abortion providers have called it a de facto abortion ban [. . .]" Had it been a violation of US Supreme Court precedent, i.e., Roe v. Wade, I believe that court would have struck the law down.ElderHap (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I suggest publishing true nature of the cited source's characterization of the law as a de facto ban. The source does not provide necessary support for an assertion in the article that "[t]he act is a de facto ban on most abortion in Texas." At most, the law supports the assertion that some people have said that it is such a ban. This is insufficient support for a statement. Calling the dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg. The law actually operates to permit citizens to enforce penalties to any person facilitating an abortion. This is different from a government ban on abortion. However unlikely, it could be that nobody would oppose such facilitation in any given case. The article should be revised to more closely resemble the truth. Please publish your agreement or disagreement with editing the article in accordance with the truth about the said source's assertion. If you have trouble with my reasoning for advocating the truth, you can let that be known as well. Best regards! ElderHap (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is actually a de jure ban, why would it be called a de facto ban? ElderHap (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what makes it a de facto ban. Clinics are legally allowed to be open, but many (most?) of them have closed as a result of the threat of civil consequences. Miserlou (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm following the course of your reasoning, I think you're saying the cause-and-effect relationship between the law and the clinic closures is close enough to sustain the article's statement that the law is a de facto ban on most abortions in Texas. If that is what you're saying, I think the cited source does not support that proposition. At most, the cited source supports the proposition that one source of news has observed something that others have said, i.e., that the law is a de facto ban on abortions in Texas. Can you get an authoritative source that characterizes the law as a de facto ban? ElderHap (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The recently enacted Texas Heartbeat Act, a de facto ban on abortions in the Lone Star State, established a system where members of the public can sue abortion providers and enablers for a minimum of $10,000 if an abortion is conducted after a fetal heartbeat can be identified. [1] for example Vexations (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, you provided an author who has herself characterized the law as a de facto ban on abortions rather than reporting that people have called it a de facto ban. Planned Parenthood says that access to abortion will be eliminated only if Roe v. Wade is overturned. [2]. PP also reports on their website that the abortion-access status in TX is legal and that the new law is a ban on only those abortions perpetrated after 6 weeks. ElderHap (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ElderHap, you asked for "an authoritative source that characterizes the law as a de facto ban". Is the senior analyst for the Jerusalem Post not good enough? But what you really wanted was someone who wrote that someone else (an abortion provider in Texas) said that it was a de facto ban? Well no, they have said, according to the Texas Tribune [3] that But abortion providers, as well as advocates for the rights of immigrants and Black women, say that the new restrictions won’t establish a de facto ban on abortion for all Texans Providers have made it clear that abortion is not completely and absolutely banned in Texas. Nobody has claimed that, not even the JP. But you know very well that the gist of it is: Some people will still be able to get an abortion, but poor people won't. Vexations (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By authoritative source, I mean a source that has authority to characterize legislation as de facto or de jure. Usually that is a court of competent jurisdiction. The number of reports in the media might accumulate to acceptance by society, however true or untrue. The public's acceptance of media reports per se is not the goal of this encyclopedia, right? ElderHap (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_Heartbeat_Act&oldid=1043518969"