Janet, Thank you for your response.
I would hate to think what might actually happen not only in Texas but in every state if the courts do not strike down this law due to the very areas that you and I agree on, but you stated in more concise and eloquent terms than myself. Thank you again.
After (or while the process is ongoing) the law itself is decided by the courts, I personally believe that my state representatives need to be held accountable for their part in passing a bill that was written with the 100% intention for the state to avoid accountability and as a specific and blatant attempt to avoid judicial review. I plan on doing what I can to work against them, including the current Speaker of the House, which happens to be my Representative. To me, that underhanded and specific intent to avoid accountability and as a work-a-round the courts alone, regardless of what any bill or passed law is, is an automatic reason to fire, and/or kick the elected person out of office with all due haste.
I honestly cannot believe the number of people I know personally who were willing to stand up and argue against steps taken by multiple President's (both parties included) who specifically stated that the powers to do what people in their own party were calling for were not available to the President. However, just weeks or a few months later, they did just that through an E.O., or some other similar slight of hand such as using a government agency to implement the action at their direction. They have argued against such unconstitutional actions based on principle alone, even if they happened to have voted for the then current President. Yet, somehow, on this issue and with this law, they either couldn't care less about the principles they have claimed to have in the past or they can't see past their own hot button issue and will either argue their support or opposition based on the issue of abortion alone. And even those arguments are sometimes absurd and illogical on their own (on both sides of the issue). At least that has been my experience with the people I personally know so far.
As to your second point, (and I could be wrong here) I believe that they intended to get around that issue by making the matter a civil process rather than a criminal one. If criminal, the State would have to provide an attorney if they could not afford one, however, in a civil trial, the person is S.O.L. and must arrange for their own lawyer or show up without one. If this law stands, I could see situations where many people could be sued and due to their own financial positions alone, they could end up loosing the case, regardless of the validity of the charges being made against them, simply because they either did not have an attorney or were not able to get one qualified in the area required (i.e. cheaper isn't always better and better isn't always cheaper). |
