ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Shocker: Newsmax Columnists Raise Concerns Over Texas Abortion Law
Topic: Newsmax

The ConWeb has been unsurprisingly enthusiastic about Texas' new, highly restrictive law that effectively bans abortion in the state. But surprisingly, a couple of Newsmax columnists have raised questions about law, particularly its "bounty hunter" legal mechanism of letting civilians enforce it and its possible effects on Republicans in future elections.

Dick Morris fretted oer the latter in his Sept. 2 column:

Last night’s Supreme Court decision to let Texas abortion law stand effectively undermines Republican chances in the coming elections of 2022 and 2024.

The Biden ratings crash caused by the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is now over. The page has been turned. Now, it's going to be all about abortion.

The gender gap in American politics began in 1974 after the Roe V Wade decision. This new Texas law, that effectively reverses the decision, will bring the abortion issue back to center stage. Recent polling suggests that 74% of the American voters support keeping abortion legal.


With Biden reeling and, on the ropes, this Texas law and the Court decision, comes as a welcome reprieve for Democrats nervous about the ’22 elections.

In the hands of a hysterical media, it might even encourage court packing and facilitate election-altering changes like those in HR 1.

This decision changes everything.

Paul F. deLespinasse spent his Sept. 7 column concerned that the law's enforcement mechanism could have severe implications on things like gun rights if it was upheld by the Supreme Court:

The Texas abortion ban cleverly obstructs legal challengers. The cleverness was needed because the statute is clearly unconstitutional given the precedent of Roe v. Wade.

The legislation denies Texas officials power to enforce it but authorizes private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone performing or contributing to an abortion. This blocks the way legislation is usually challenged before anyone is convicted for violating it. .

Challengers usually sue the official who could enforce the law, but here there is no such official. Since any private citizen could enforce this law, it is unclear who challengers could sue.


The more cautious abortion opponents have avoided putting the issue squarely before the Supreme Court, fearing that some justices personally opposed to abortion might uphold Roe on grounds of stare decisis — the importance of stable rules people can rely on.

Instead, they have enacted increasingly severe procedural limits on abortion, seeking to nibble Roe to death. But Texas has chosen to be "in your face" about it.

The Supreme Court therefore may not be able to evade the basic issue forever. It might either have to overrule Roe or strike down the Texas statute. I predict the latter.

Texas is playing with constitutional fire. Its approach is one that conservatives could never support as a general rule. It could also be used to protect other legislation violating the Constitution, including laws prohibiting ownership or possession of all guns.

We've not seen these issues discussed elsewhere in the ConWeb.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:54 AM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« September 2021 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google