I disagree that the GQP won't try to further restrict birth control in all its forms including pharma.
SCOTUS has already allowed certain religious institutions to deny such access via their insurance plans.
Big Pharma will find a way to make up the money elsewhere, and the insurance companies don't like paying for it anyway.
It has been hard to be positive this past week, but am hoping this 9/6 response from Garland is a ray of hope. DOJ link on the bottom.
Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8
The U.S. Department of Justice today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland regarding Texas SB8:
“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248.
“The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services. The department has consistently obtained criminal and civil remedies for violations of the FACE Act since it was signed into law in 1994, and it will continue to do so now.
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities.
“We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”
If you have an incident, concern, or questions, please contact the FBI at FBI.gov/tips or through the complaint portal civilrights.justice.gov.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-regarding-texas-sb8-0
@theungamer It is a nice statement, but whether intentionally or not, it completely missed the point. The FACE Act is not even the issue; FACE has always been enforced - at some times and places better than others, admittedly, but this new vigilante law is the issue. It is a blatantly unconstitutional law that the Justice department should have been ferociously fighting all along. Instead, we get a bland, luke-warm, Milque-Toast statement about how "we're going to enforce this other law over here that has nothing to do with the issue in the hope that it will distract you from the fact that we did absolutely *nothing* to try to stop an unconstitutional law from being passed. Oh yeah, we're also not going to sue Texas for it even though it's obviously unconstitutional because...well, I don't know, we're just not."
@tgraf66 Merrick Garland's statement may have some unseen possibility. Sometimes life has a way of coming around the back side of an issue with unexpected results. Maybe these new laws will cause an excess of court cases, overburden and crash the Texas court system. Let's leave space for possibility.
@cindy I love this. I found it last week on Twitter and reposted on my FB page. I actually engaged with someone there and we both managed to remain civil! I knew her perspective and fully anticipated we were on opposite sides of the issue. She kept bringing up the moral/philosophical arguments for personhood, etc., but never dealing with the autonomy question and the (what I consider to be the primary) issue of forced birth. The argument presented in the post you shared really details what most of the religious arguments dance around. Thanks for sharing here!
@leec21 Welcome! And thank you for the reminder. We have lots of battles ahead, but are on the move towards a better future.
Interesting article talking with CEO of Redfin about the movement of the U.S. and climate change. People may be moving to Texas for the lower prices and cost of living right now but in the long-term it might not be the best move. Insurance companies know what is coming.
Homebuyers not worried about climate change: Redfin CEO (cnbc.com)
But I can understand not leaving a state you have made a home in. I was born in NC. Other than some study abroads, student exchange, working at a camp in VT, etc. I have lived here my whole life. You want to talk about a political battleground state... Plenty of stupid, ignorant people but also some progressive people here. Plenty of relocated Northerners as well as Southern morons with Confederate flags.
I'm hoping climate change won't affect me too much in Central NC. I've put up radiant barrier and it really does help control the heat of the home. We could live without A/C. It wouldn't be comfortable but it would be survivable. It's already paid for itself and things are only going to get worse.
@deetoo Cannot love this enough!!!