Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday’s meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a “Sanctuary County for the Unborn.”

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas’ existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

  • rothaine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    was settled by the courts in 1824.

    Nothing is “settled” with the current Supreme Court.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Commerce Clause is about as settled as it can get, though. Especially with a Court so enamoured with Founders Intent. Gibbons v Ogden is probably only behind Marbury v Madison in sacred status to this Court.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Overturning Gibbons would do more harm to the conservative cause than good.

          The entire West Coast is liberal-controlled states. They could legally tax or simply cut off any goods or services bound for conservative states originating from or passing through their states.

          All to defend a law that’s essentially unenforceable from a practical standpoint.

      • I_DONT_RAPE_KITTEHS@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Sorry, but after the gutting of Roe, stare decisis only applies to things conservatives and/or billionaire overlords approve of” – SCOTUS

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Conservatives and billionaires absolutely approve of the Commerce Clause.

          Overturning Gibbons would allow California to tax all internet traffic coming through LA from the rest of the world, or allow liberal states to seize high-capacity magazines being shipped across state lines.

          Imagine Facebook having to pay import/export taxes every time someone accessed their account.

          It would be the most impactful SCOTUS decision of all time, and would be absolutely ruinous to the business interests of the wealthy.

        • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stare decisis has only ever applied to things the justices approve of. It’s just that this may be the most fucked up group we’ve ever had. If all the former judges were also lovers of stare decisis, most of our civil rights would not be here, because many of those have been when previous judgements were overturned. Just think about the segregation of schools. Was Brown v The Board of Education not a reversal of Plessy v Ferguson?

          The concept has always been about a bullshit homage that lawyers and judges dance around.