I’m tempted to ask why it’s always Texas, but soon as I do, I’m sure other states will wade into this perverse competition.<\/p>\n
Anyway, here’s more from the Times on the Texas lawsuit:A New Test for Texas\u2019 Abortion Restrictions – NYTimes.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n The latest legal challenge to Texas\u2019 sweeping abortion measures went to trial<\/a> in a federal courthouse in Austin last week, as federal judges around the country grapple with the question of how far states can go in regulating abortion \u2014 a question that seems likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court.<\/em><\/p>\n The crux of the matter is what the Supreme Court meant when it ruled in 1992<\/a> that abortion regulations may not impose an \u201cundue burden\u201d on women seeking an abortion. Some judges have held that as long as a law has a \u201crational basis\u201d and does not prevent most women from getting an abortion, it does not impose an undue burden. But others have suggested that laws making abortions harder to get must have a good reason for doing so.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cStates can protect unborn life, but they have to do so in ways that reason with women, rather than just interpose obstacles to women<\/strong>,\u201d said Reva Siegel, a Yale Law School professor who has written about Roe v. Wade. \u201cThese laws do interpose obstacles, and they claim to do so on women\u2019s behalf, and the question is whether that purpose is a legitimate one.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n That’s my bolding because to me it seems like the essence of these laws: they interpose obstacles to women without reasoning with women. That is, they are written by men.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’m tempted to ask why it’s always Texas, but soon as I do, I’m sure other states will wade into this perverse competition. Anyway, here’s more from the Times on the Texas lawsuit:A New Test for Texas\u2019 Abortion Restrictions – … Continue reading