683
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

If you think laws cannot get more ridiculous, Texas proves you wrong.

How are they going to enforce this? Police patrols on highways stopping each and every car with a female in it that is of "eglible age" and submit her to a mandatory pregnancy test before she is allowed to leave the state - only if test is negative? And put those who happen to be positive into a "pregnancy protection ward" or something?

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

It's civilian enforced. So say a person overhears a woman telling her friend that they are leaving tomorrow to drive to another state for an abortion. The person can sue her (and anyone helping her) for violating this law. If they win, they get a chunk of cash and the "satisfaction" of knowing they are oppressing women.

It's designed to not only deter women from getting abortions, but to deter people from helping them. If you were in Texas and a friend asked you to drive her to get an abortion in another state, you'd need to weigh the possibility of being sued. You might decide it was too much of a risk for you and not help. And that's what they are hoping to achieve.

[-] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 4 points 8 months ago

So what I'm hearing is that we need to start some campaign to make new language for abortion that will obfuscate whether you're going for an abortion or going for tourism reasons to a state that will help. Which states around texas will still offer medical care to a pregnant woman?

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I'm sure that will spring up, but it shouldn't be necessary. Also, all it takes is a woman telling one friend who either turns on her or who spills the beans to someone else.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Ahh, the good old Blockwart method. Worked well in Nazi Germany. Just in case you had doubts where the Republicans are getting their ideas from.

this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
683 points (98.2% liked)

News

21700 readers
3265 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS