Heartbeats

I'm no Politico fan, but I trust the legal analysis and judgment of Sarah Isgur, the talented daughter of my first client, who is one of the smartest, most humane men I've ever had the pleasure to know. I met Sarah once when she was about four, so it's exciting to see the adult woman she grew into. This analysis is head and shoulders above anything I've read this week, regardless of anyone's position on the underlying merits of the contentious new Texas "heartbeat" law. She makes a good point about the dangers of approving the clever procedural gambit on which the law is based.
on

5 comments:

  1. Elise12:05 PM

    Thanks - interesting and helpful. I had read that Dobbs was the case to watch so I was glad the writer explained why.

    One thing she said jumped out at me:

    for years Republican politicians have been able to signal their anti-abortion bona fides by signing onto these types of bills without any real concern that the law would actually go into effect

    Years ago someone wrote that for most politicians on both sides, the abortion fight was mostly just a great way to fund-raise. I suspect that someone was right.

    BTW: The link you gave doesn't work for me but I found Isgur's piece here:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490

    ReplyDelete
  2. Texan991:28 PM

    Thanks, I don't know what I did with that link, but I've fixed it now.

    I thought it was a good warning that this "private suit" gambit could equally well be tried with people who sell guns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Grim2:03 PM

    I think that’s all correct. Gun manufacturers are already being sued for the legal use of their products, a standard no other industry has to face. They will definitely try this approach if it’s approved by the courts.

    Re: fundraising, I would agree. Its all issues, except the Chamber of Commerce ones they really take seriously. I have a firm policy against sending any politicians any money at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thos.2:48 PM

    I'm picturing a law that allows private civil suits against anyone who "spreads misinformation".

    Even if you were to prevail against every frivolous clam, how long can you blog if you have to go to court against everyone who disagrees with anything you write?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grim3:18 PM

    Yeah, that's a good point. We're close to that even without adding the lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete