Lubbock County, Texas, becomes the next county to pass legislation banning women from using their roads to seek abortions.
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're missing the right to privacy in your phone. Make sure you didn't put the clinic into Google maps or make a call to them ahead of time. Governmental AI is on the way and it will be steered by the same people making these rules.
LEAs have been shown to actively track women who use search engines or messaging services to seek information about abortion services. There's a non-zero chance that women who they suspect, and their friends and family, are tagged in their system when they search the plates of someone passing by.
It's not about lying to cops, particularly if they can already prove you were seeking those services in the first place. At that point they'll arrest you with probable cause.
They already use that kind of system with drug dealers. If they suspect you sell drugs, they will tag your name and plate and find a reason to pull you over if they spot you. Why would they hesitate to track women like that?
That's the loophole they're trying to use. You can't punish them for the abortion, so you punish them for using public roads for disallowed purposes (driving to abortion). They do have jurisdiction over road use.
There’s two things that apply in this situation. The first is that like several other states, they’re not making getting an abortion in another state illegal, they’re making traveling on their infrastructure for the purposes of obtaining an abortion in another state illegal. Is that an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce? Who the fuck knows anymore? I don’t think it will hold, but I didn’t expect Justice Thomas to rise like Cthulhu from his eternal and well grifted slumber to kill Roe, so I’m not offering an opinion on that.
The second way, and this is also worrying me, is that while they can’t make flying to California to smoke pot illegal, they can make having pot in your system when you land back in Texas illegal. If they can’t make having an abortion in CA illegal, can they still use medical records to track that your pregnancy was terminated out of state, and prosecute you on a charge after returning to the state with a terminated pregnancy?
To be honest, I think that will fail too, but I’m sure it’ll land on the books someplace.
I’m also sure that these will all become national level laws because people still think politics is a team sport, and if it does not terrify you that the worst president in the history of the US and with openly fascist statements of taking full control and going after his enemies is running neck and neck with just a regular pre-2000s style politician, you’re either not paying attention or you’re privileged as all fuck.
I'm not super sure that applies here - they aren't being punished (legally) for getting the abortion, but for using the roads to get there. It seems to me conceptually similar to how European companies aren't allowed to sell drugs that are used for lethal injection to the US, even though those drugs are legal to sell in Europe: They aren't being punished for taking part in an execution that's legal where it happens, just for doing something that enables it in a place where it isn't legal. Same deal here.
I'm sure it's an unconstitutional/illegal law for some other reason, I just don't think this specific reason applies.
When pulled over, any interaction beyond what is required by law should be not answered or answered with something along the lines of invoking the 5th. There are a bazillion YouTube lawyers that all the say this.
If you need directions, put in something that isn't the abortion place, but has it along the way, like a national park or other tourist place, some conference, etc. Then put in the real destination when you get across the border.
These types of laws tend to rely on someone close to the pregnant person calling the cops, usually family. These communities passing these laws are full of people who would eagerly jail their children for getting an abortion.
A cop pulls you over “I don’t answer questions”, “I’d like to speak to a lawyer.”, “I do not consent to a search.”, “I would like to speak to a lawyer.”
If they keep asking questions. Do not respond with anything other than “I would like to speak to a lawyer.” Be polite; but you are far more likely to incriminate yourself than not.
The more you say, they more they can use against you.
Straight up intimidation. Women will now be pulled over and asked questions that are nobody's business, not to mention it gets more women pulled over and in danger of being assaulted by police.
I think it would likely be used to add extra charges after the fact ie did you get caught? Then you must have also commited this crime on top of the others. Then again I might be ascribing logic where there is none.
They could just have checkpoints on the exit roads on the state. There are a lot of things Texas republicans are doing with police, namely allowing them to be border patrol agents with authority to deport people. This, along with precedent being pushed that police can find probable cause after the fact that you’re arrested, police can just arrest first because they saw a women “who looked pregnant.” I foresee women becoming second class citizens really soon in red states, and its really troubling.
Commerce Clause is about as settled as it can get, though. Especially with a Court so enamoured with Founders Intent. Gibbons v Ogden is probably only behind Marbury v Madison in sacred status to this Court.
SCOTUS allowed the abortion bounty law SB8 to stand before Roe was overturned. It was clearly unconstitutional. So, they're just expanding on it to the next logical steps.
Something something it's not commerce because reasons.
Nevermind that the Commerce Clause has been cited to give the federal government authority to prohibit activities that are neither commerce nor inter-state, such as growing cannabis for personal use on your own property.
Schroedinger's commerce. It's commerce only when it's convenient for prohibitionists.
The federal government doesn't outlaw abortion, so they can't use the Commerce Clause to enforce abortion restrictions enacted by the states.
However, the issues you cite with them being bullies with the commerce clause are centered on authority granted through Gibbons.
Gibbons was specifically about states trying to enforce laws (specifically state-granted steamboat monopolies) within their borders that had a direct impact on commerce within another state. The Supreme Court declared that a violation of the commerce clause because only the Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce.
Texas passing laws prohibiting travel to another state to seek abortions (which are federally legal) could only be allowed by SCOTUS by overturning Gibbons, which would be absolutely devastating.
That would be by far the most-impactful reversal in the Court's history, and it can't be overstated how much of a grenade it would be. Everybody would lose, and the GOP's owners more than anyone else.
IANAL: how exactly is this going to get overturned? The courts have already gotten rid of offender observer standing so the only way would be if this is actually enforced at which point the Supreme Court could simply allow the appeals court ruling stand.
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.
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.
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.
I think getting the fuck out of Texas is exactly what this legislation is attempting to prevent. If they get away with this, I'd doubt they'll stop there, either. Never mind abortion, this will set the precedent that they can legally "prevent" you from using public road infrastructure for any particular purpose they feel like.
It doesn't take a legal expert to see why the line of reasoning they're using to justify this is horseshit, nor to grasp just how dangerous this type of thing is.
That's easy to say, not so simple to do. Especially when friends and family ask why you are moving far from them ans your job. To speak nothing of the costs for Interstate moving.
That's the idea. Republicans want a permanent majority in Texas, and they're making the state as inhospitable as possible to anyone who might vote against them.
Next up they will advise women to carry a note from thier husband or father detailing where they are going so they can avoid suspicion. The cops will pull them over and ask for thier papers.
Cool... driving whilst pregnant is the latest thing to fear US police over then. Wait until the first pregnant woman is shot as part of a routine traffic stop checking for abortion plans.
Not just those getting an abortion, but anyone helping them. It's designed to isolate pregnant women so that they have no one to turn to if they need help.
Or more worryingly, used as an excuse by cops to stop any woman they want whenever they want on suspicion they're trying to get an abortion.
And then they can force women to take pregnancy tests on the spot, which will require stripping for giving urine samples, giving police plausible deniability to rape whoever they want.
The ordinance is enforceable through the private enforcement mechanism which has proven its success in both the Lubbock City Ordinance and the Texas Heartbeat Act. This is how the ordinance is enforced,
And they're damn slick about it, too. They start by asking a woman who they think might be pregnant how far along they are, if they have a name picked out, all innocent and normal questions to ask an expecting mother, right? Like, they do it at rest stops and gas stations. And because the woman seeking an abortion isn't being questioned by someone who outwardly looks like a cop, they let their guard down. So, basically if you're a pregnant woman in Texas and you are seeking to leave the state for an abortion, trust NOBODY. Keep your guard up, don't answer any questions, and don't stop anywhere unless absolutely necessary.
No, they do it through the same mechanism that made the Texas Heartbeat Bill possible. Private reporting and investigation, AKA snitching. Remember in Texas you can get $10k for reporting a woman seeking an abortion.
Unfortunately, the legal precedent that protected a woman's right to get an abortion was overturned by the SCOTUS and now we've got a complete mish-mash of state and local laws being created to test the boundaries of what they can do.
I actually don't think Dobbs affected this that much. Texas was trying to circumvent Roe before Dobbs, anyway, not using criminal prosecution but by allowing people to be sued in civil court for abortion.
The bigots dictate the law now and everyone lets them because no one wants to overthrow those evil local governments, not even legally through elections.
People always say this, but it's not as strong of an argument as they think it is. Religious conservative people, especially Christians, give to charity quite a lot, actually. They just hear that argument and think, "this person doesn't know what they're talking about, we obvious do care about the already born, I can comfortably dismiss everything they say now."
We should probably also have them start wearing masks and robes over their faces/bodies too, to prevent them from having unwanted pregnancies. Actually, just don't even give driver's licenses to women in the first place, since they should always be getting escorted by their fathers or husbands in the first place, they really shouldn't even be allowed to drive. And if we wanted to reduce unemployment, we could just require all these women in the workplace to go back to being stay-at-home moms, like God intended, freeing up all those jobs for hard-working American men to work at. Send me money if you agree.
Oh, oh. Don't forget that women don't need to bother with the whole pesky voting thing. Their brains aren't built for it. The 19th amendment was a mistake.
This shouldn't be a problem based on how they think abortions work...the woman didn't go out FOR an abortion, she was out shopping and decided to get one, like picking up a snack on your way out of the market!
Seriously it's deranged. If they behaved generally like they care about the 'children' and the women, I could accept they're at least acting in good faith according to their dumbass beliefs, but they don't seem to care except for outlawing and restricting women's activities, so it's clear that those who say the point is just to subjugate women are right.
Everyone needs to start suing conservatives in Texas under this law. Make these conservatives fight their own defenses and raise defense funds. I don't get why lawsuits didn't fly against prominent GOP voters and members day 1. Make their lives hell with lawsuits.
“Oh. You want to secede? Well about this. We’ll do a transitional period. We won’t send you money, and you won’t send us taxes. Talk to you in about a decade. Hope a hurricane doesn’t hit, cuz that’d suck… also, your citizens won’t be paying into or benefit from Social Security… and also? We’re setting up a customs control point on your border, and your people need a visa.
“Also you get to deal with Mexico if they choose to take steps because you’re an asshole.”
Texas, as well as plenty other states, aren't even in full compliance with the ADA which is a law over 30 years old, it's an ongoing fight that really started with the legal case Olmstead vs LC and moved into the seeking of consent decrees in recent years. To my knowledge none of the states that are infracting the ADA have been threatened with funding revocation or financial penalties of any kind. I doubt money will play any part of this. They'll just run it through the courts until the people who are doing this dont have jobs anymore I'd wager, if they do anything at all.
If you think laws cannot get more ridiculous, Texas proves you wrong.
How are they going to enforce this? Police patrols on highways stopping each and every car with a female in it that is of "eglible age" and submit her to a mandatory pregnancy test before she is allowed to leave the state - only if test is negative? And put those who happen to be positive into a "pregnancy protection ward" or something?
It's civilian enforced. So say a person overhears a woman telling her friend that they are leaving tomorrow to drive to another state for an abortion. The person can sue her (and anyone helping her) for violating this law. If they win, they get a chunk of cash and the "satisfaction" of knowing they are oppressing women.
It's designed to not only deter women from getting abortions, but to deter people from helping them. If you were in Texas and a friend asked you to drive her to get an abortion in another state, you'd need to weigh the possibility of being sued. You might decide it was too much of a risk for you and not help. And that's what they are hoping to achieve.
So what I'm hearing is that we need to start some campaign to make new language for abortion that will obfuscate whether you're going for an abortion or going for tourism reasons to a state that will help. Which states around texas will still offer medical care to a pregnant woman?
For the first time, I find myself compelled to find out what those stupid sovereign cit fucks are referencing with all their talk about "right to travel."
Yup! The second my contract is up I'm out of here and never looking back!
In the meantime, I'll vote, and pressure others to do so as well. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but I gotta tell you, watching Greg Abbott get re-elected nearly made me lose hope in this state. I'm still hoping it can be turned around, but that hope is hanging on via life support at this point. And if Republicans still remain in power when I'm out, then fuck this state. I did my best while I was here.
Which reminds me, it's time for me to re-up my Deputy Voters Registrar cert in my county! Let the drives begin!
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.
Hol’ up….
As dumb as both this and the “I can sue you because abortion!” thing are, this one cannot “bolster” the other because it specifically targets women.
In the original one, the woman obtaining the abortion cannot be targeted. It has to be a doctor, friend, clinic escort, Uber driver (yes, it’s fucking dumb ok), etc. but not the woman.
I really hate the terms liberal and conservative. It makes liberals sound thriftless when their greatest sin is giving a damn and trying to improve the future, and conservatives sound judicious when they're more interested in genitals than clean water or shelter.
I feel like more accurate would be preventionists and reactionaries, or progressives and regressives, cooperative party and uncooperative party, the discussion party and the tantrum party, the social party and the antisocial party, building sandcastles party and the kicking sandcastles party, simply the sharing party and the selfish party.
That is not even close to what the Dobbs decision ruled. What are you talking about?
Dobbs just said basically that the Constitution does not imply a fundamental right to an abortion (which is what Roe said). That's it. Congress is still free to pass laws about abortion, and it could try to preempt states prohibiting it.
Not to mention the Commerce Clause reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, which this Texas ordinance doesn't explicitly violate, but comes awfully close and will probably be challenged on those grounds.
Unfortunately no. This is some stupid fuck running around convincing all of these counties to pass these ridiculous laws all based on his belief. And people are just falling in line. Here you go. This dickhead: "At the helm of legislation and the campaign to ban abortion-related transit in Texas is Mark Lee Dickson, a Christian pastor who began pushing communities to outlaw abortion by declaring themselves "sanctuary cities for the unborn" in 2019."
Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.
We're about at the point where people are going to have to start setting up a modern underground railroad to help women and their families escape that oppressive shithole and set up lives where they're free.
Wonder if this is just a preemptive measure to prevent someone from suing the city, claiming they were "aiding and abetting" women seeking abortions? After all, the law is so vague that a Republican extremist (or a Democratic rabble-rouser) could probably argue allowing women to use those roads runs afoul of the law.
So that needs a question answered, very badly. How many lawsuits could a 'concerned party' file against every city on the road between a pregnant woman and another state? A few hundred per abortion? If you hit them over the head enough, maybe local politics would turn against the idiocy of the abortion lawsuit law, and that could filter to the state level?
It's the same private citizen enforcement that was done for the Texas abortion ban in the first place. It does an end run around the Constitution and case law where it's not technically the state doing any of the enforcement.
And...if that is a place for the unborn to see refuge..does that mean migrants that are expecting mothers or maybe just are THINKING of getting pregnant, can go there and skip the lines? Desantis needs to know where he can bus his pawns.