Talk:Texas Heartbeat Act

Under Construction

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

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)

Texas Right to Life

What is the provenance of this PAC?

https://www.texasrighttolifepac.com/

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

Looks to me like some typical political action committee for misguided cuckolds. If you're asking about their origin, they have a page that espouses their history from the organization's point of view. If they have some tie to the legislation such as influence, reported in reliable sources, then that could warrant tying into the article. John Shandy` • talk 19:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

SHORT ANSWER: The relevant political conditions are that the Texas Republicans hold majorities in both House and Senate of the Texas Legislature and that the Governor (who has veto power) is also a Republican. As for constitutional and other legal challenges under state law (which could in theory act as a constraint), all members of the Texas Supreme Court (the court of last resort for all civil cases) are also Republicans.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ElderHap, perhaps you could be a bit clearer upfront about what you find accceptable. If I understand you correctly, you would only accept a report in an independent, reliable source that summarizes a court ruling that says the law is a de facto ban.

If you know that such a ruling and hence the reporting on it does not exist, then an acknowledgemnt of that would have been welcome. "I will only accept sources that I know cannot exist" would have summarized that nicely. Vexations (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I'm not sure if you're saying that the law cannot truthfully be called a de facto ban, but that is irrelevant. We should care more about what most clearly this encyclopedia is about, that is, making available a summary of verifiable information. A news story about a dog's tail being a leg does not constitute an authoritative source about a dog's leg. Let me know your opinion of whether the current state of the "de facto" statement passes muster. Best regards!

Dan Crenshaw

User:Miserlou, I have no objection to you adding Republican reactions, but it needs to be something more substantive than a very generic message of encouragement from a junior congressman. What value does it add to the article? It would be notable if a Republican were objecting to the bill, but "conservative politician supports conservative legislation" is not noteworthy. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The section shouldn't just be Democrats. It'd be great if we could add more conservative voices though, as it it would illustrate that this isn't just a fringe Texas thing, but something that has some form of broad national support. Laying it out there: aesthetically, I think it's a good way to end the article.Miserlou (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Should the defiant doctor have his own Wikipedia article?

Now that the brave senior GYN Dr. Alan Braid, who has defied the Heartbeat Act and is serving as a test-case to challenge the law in court, has been profiled in the Washington Post, shouldn't Wikipedia have an article about him? He's apparently quite an interesting guy, on the front lines of the abortion fight since the dark ages (before Roe v. Wade was decided). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Dive in.--Nowa (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To call the defiance of SB8 "brave" is not being neutral, nor can this particular instance of defiance be considered principled civil obedience because (1) his material interests are at stake (huge drop in abortion business and therefore revenues), and (2) the explicit purpose was to lure plaintiffs nationwide to sue him in Texas, so his already retained lawyers could attack SB8 from a defensive posture, which solves the problems they have encountered with the pre-enforcement constitutional challenge in federal court. Lupe Texensis (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Lupe Texensis (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

‘Brave’ doesn’t have to mean ‘not self-interested’. The doctor did appear to place himself in significant legal and financially risk (and potentially physical harm as well, especially if he is ultimately successful), regardless of motivations. As long as his interest as a provider is made clear, is ‘brave’ really that controversial? Does that word appear in any of the linked sources? Jim Grisham (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is required for the actual article. This is the TALK page, not the actual article. So, no NPOV needed. (At least, that's how I understand the NPOV rule. I hope and expect that someone will correct me if I'm wrong.)

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

United States v. Texas section

This section in the article needs more sourcing, having multiple paragraphs without inline citations. There are notes like "See Docket Entry 28", but these aren't references and would be primary even if properly formatted. I have no reason to believe the information is untrue or unverifiable, so I'm tagging the section for reference improvement and posting this note. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it be proper attribution to summarize Judge Pitman's being Texas' first openly gay district judge and an Obama appointee in this section? I suppose the attribution would inform observant readers of the possibility of claims of bias and impropriety in the judge's ruling of October 7? ElderHap (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyi: The docket, while still containing some primary sources (some entries are probably secondary or tertiary, tbh) is now in the ‘External Links’ section of the article. Jim Grisham (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Separately, this section is getting quite long, and it will be getting more attention in the coming days & weeks.

Some cleanup is likely warranted, but consideration should also be made to spin it off into its own article at United States v. Texas (2021) (or elsewhere) and leave either a summary here in its place (a transcluded copy of the introduction to the new article would probably be ideal for keeping everything in sync, especially for such a fast-moving topic).

If that is going to happen eventually anyway, it’s probably better to do it sooner rather than later so that the edit history doesn’t get even more split up. Jim Grisham (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As a possible alternative (or in addition to the above), the entire ‘Litigation’ section could be its own article with a much shorter summary here. Years from now it may shrink back down to ‘section-size’, but it is difficult to imagine that it won’t rapidly be growing in the near-term. Jim Grisham (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that SCOTUS is taking this this term for oral arguments, I've created the case page, copying all that was in this section there (with attribution). So this section can be trimmed way back to the key highlights of litigation. --Masem (t) 17:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal standing

I posted on the talk page of standing (law) asking for an update regarding the TX Heartbeat Act, since its provision to let uninvolved 3rd parties file lawsuits goes against what I thought the usual concept of standing was. I then found this article, and notice it doesn't say anything about the topic. A quick web search found this quoting some lawyers saying similar things, so it would be great if some info was added (maybe not using that specific source). IANAL and don't feel qualified to evaluate sources and write about this, but I have enough lay understanding to be puzzled by the issue. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The quick answer is that standing in federal court is based on Article III of the federal constitution (as construed by the SCOTUS, see Lujan) while states can create their own standing rules for state court litigation. With respect to SB8 the Texas legislature created a cause of action and statutory standing for any person to bring it, but it will be up to the Texas Supreme Court to determine whether constitutional standing requirements are satisfied if an SB8 plaintiff has no actual stake (other than the prospect of the "bounty") in the SB8 violation (illegal abortion) on which he/she/it sues pursuant to SB8. Standing would be a threshold jurisdictional matter just as in federal court, and may thus preclude a determination of constitutionality if the court finds that standing is absent. An legal expert discussion can be found here: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/15/the-procedural-puzzles-of-sb8-part-v-standing-in-state-court-litigation/ Lupe Texensis (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Treason, sedition, etc

Why does this page not cover this subject at all? Many legal scholars have stated clearly that while the legislators behind SB8 are immune from prosecution, anyone attempting to bring a case under SB8 would be guilty of some variety of treason/sedition.

It seems unarguable that it is an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, since it's a direct challenge to the authority and primacy of the Supreme Court, and by extension the entire US system of law.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-texas-over-senate-bill-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.159.203 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead tagged as too long

Well that's for sure! I think it could win some sort of a prize. However, reading it tells me that cutting it back is not going to be as easy as I first thought. In a way it's not so surprising that it would take a long explanation since it was purposely meant to be complicated with many twists and turns. Hense it still stands after all this time. Plus it's all important basic information because it so far is showing the successful way to get around Roe. So I think we need to work together on this and find some sort way to cut it back while keeping everything that's essential. IMO we need to end up with a lead longer than the norm due to the complexity of the subject. Thoughts? Sectionworker (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC) I have trimmed the lead. Sectionworker (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Tagged for updating

I tagged this for updating as much of the article will have to be rewritten in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned Roe v. Wade. Couple of points:

• Tenses will have to be changed, as numerous passages discussing the law's relation to Roe v. Wade assume that said precedent is still binding in some way.
• The legal challenges against this law will probably not be as successful now that abortion is no longer a constitutional right.

That being said I doubt anyone has written long-form analyses yet, which is why I tagged for updating instead of just updating myself. It's quite clear that this article has to be updated but I don't have the sources necessary to do so yet. Maybe this is technically WP:OR but I feel comfortable ignoring the rules with this tag. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

New study by JAMA Pediatrics with analysis by Johns Hopkins 6.24.24

According to analysis by Johns Hopkins and a study by JAMA Pediatrics, SB8 is associated with an increase in infant mortality and newborn deaths.

1. NBC News 6.24.24
2. AP News 6.24.24
3. The Hill 6.24.24
4. Johns Hopkins 6.24.24

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)