Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[jerryskids 5,248]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

We’ll find out how much damage the covidiots did to kids down the road.  At least they were just morons. Teachers just didn’t want to go to work. 

Experts will tell you no damage, because that is the message.  Makes sense, right?  I mean, who would expect any negative impact from 18 months+ of isolating kids from peers, strangers, people faces to develop interactive skills. We don't have studies on this, so perhaps we could look at past studies on neglect as an indicator?

Quote

Chronic neglect is associated with a wider range of damage than active abuse, but it receives less attention in policy and practice.

In the U.S., neglect accounts for 78% of all child maltreatment cases, far more than physical abuse (17%), sexual abuse (9%), and psychological abuse (8%) combined.

Science tells us that young children who experience significantly limited caregiver responsiveness may sustain a range of adverse physical and mental health consequences that actually produce more widespread developmental impairments than overt physical abuse. These can include cognitive delays, stunting of physical growth, impairments in executive function and self-regulation skills, and disruptions of the body’s stress response. With more than a half million documented cases in the U.S. in 2010 alone, neglect accounts for 78% of all child maltreatment cases nationwide, far more than physical abuse (17%), sexual abuse (9%), and psychological abuse (8%) combined. Despite these compelling findings, child neglect receives far less public attention than either physical abuse or sexual exploitation and a lower proportion of mental health services.

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/deep-dives/neglect/#:~:text=These can include cognitive delays,of the body's stress response.

People will NOT want to remotely entertain the cognitive dissonance that protecting their young children from Covid could have negative ramifications, so they will fight this argument tooth and nail.  But again, it makes sense right, we take off the masks and walla! the kids are as emotionally advanced as evah$#@!

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

52 minutes ago, weepaws said:

That’s not all true, teachers here wanted to go back to work very badly, even had town hall meetings about it.  

Them are facts jack. 

He likes to speak in absolutes that he knows nothing about. 

44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You’re right.  I should have said the teachers union. 

You'd still be wrong. 

[peenie 1,696]

 

[jerryskids 5,248]

17 minutes ago, peenie said:

 

I'll start with the first item:  I'm sure life insurance companies would be happy to insure your fetus like they are any other life:  with a detailed actuarial analysis and associated premiums to expected payout which statistically guarantees a profit.  Because that's what insurance companies do.   

[peenie 1,696]

48 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'll start with the first item:  I'm sure life insurance companies would be happy to insure your fetus like they are any other life:  with a detailed actuarial analysis and associated premiums to expected payout which statistically guarantees a profit.  Because that's what insurance companies do.   

That’s a good one!  

[Voltaire 4,571]

2 hours ago, peenie said:

 

I'm neither pro-Life nor pro-Choice, I see the logic in both positions. What tips me off the fence is the enjoyment I feel when watching annoying "menstrating people" like this get pissed off. It's also convenient since I ally with the Pro-Lifers on issues other than abortion.

I am glad blue states exist though for two reasons: First, it's clear that mentrating people like this should not be procreating at all and any child this narcissistic  b*tch would potentially give birth to would be doomed to a miserable existence. Second, there should have a place for them to migrate to separate where they can only aim their vindictive nastiness at each other and not annoy normal women.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,779]

Imagine basing your vote on abortion? It’s so easy to have it not be a part of your life. Use contraception. Boom. Problem solved. People want to kill their blood? Let ‘em. Boom , not your problem. 

[shorepatrol 1,740]

2 hours ago, peenie said:

 

Does she have an only fans? I'd like to see her  butthoole 

[nobody 2,055]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Imagine basing your vote on abortion? It’s so easy to have it not be a part of your life. Use contraception. Boom. Problem solved. People want to kill their blood? Let ‘em. Boom , not your problem. 

Preach 

[TimHauck 1,830]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People want to kill their blood? Let ‘em. Boom , not your problem. 

So you are pro-choice?

[Hawkeye21 1,874]

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Wait you think 315 5-18 year olds died from the Covid vax?

I thought that's what that showed but I must have misread it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,779]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

So you are pro-choice?

Not that late term stuff. That’s a person. 

[peenie 1,696]

11 hours ago, Voltaire said:

First, it's clear that mentrating people like this should not be procreating at all and any child this narcissistic  b*tch would potentially give birth to would be doomed to a miserable existence. Second, there should have a place for them to migrate to separate where they can only aim their vindictive nastiness at each other and not annoy normal women.

So what should a normal nice woman do? If she has unprotected sex with her boyfriend then aren’t they both equally at fault? Yet, only she gets pregnant. All of the responsibility of caring for that unborn child will fall squarely on her shoulders. The man has no responsibility until the child can be proven genetically to be his and a court order makes him pay. No court order can make him be a good father or even visit the child if he doesn’t want. The mother bares the burden of an unwanted pregnancy not the man under the current rules of our society. It’s wishful thinking that most men would step up and be emotionally and financially responsible (as my culture of men has shown that it’s not the case). The government will have to be the daddy to all of these unwanted babies.

Imagine if they got rid of abortion in China when couples were only allowed to have one child? I doubt abortion was seen as a contraception method for the poor and irresponsible. 

[Voltaire 4,571]

26 minutes ago, peenie said:

So what should a normal nice woman do? If she has unprotected sex with her boyfriend then aren’t they both equally at fault? Yet, only she gets pregnant. All of the responsibility of caring for that unborn child will fall squarely on her shoulders. The man has no responsibility until the child can be proven genetically to be his and a court order makes him pay. No court order can make him be a good father or even visit the child if he doesn’t want. The mother bares the burden of an unwanted pregnancy not the man under the current rules of our society. It’s wishful thinking that most men would step up and be emotionally and financially responsible but my culture of men has shown that it’s not the case. The government will have to be the daddy to all of these unwanted babies.

Don't look at me for answers. I've spent my entire life without any conviction on abortion. I do not vote based on the issue. Every time abortion comes up over the twenty years at FFT, I always say that I agree with whoever I speak to last on the issue. Right now, that'd be you. I can tell you two things 1) with me, this scenario would never occur 2) I am not attracted to and don't want anything to do with mechanical humanoids like this. I find her grating. When she needs intimacy, she can go on tinder and hook up overnight with someone like cbfalcon and then go scrape his kid.

I support overturning Roe vs Wade on constitutional grounds. Rather than go through the amendment process with 2/3 of both bodies of Congress and 38 states like other constituional protections, it got backdoored by activist justices based on their own personal preferences 50 years ago. That's bullsh*t. As for the state of Michigan... whatever... ban it ... keep it. I don't care. Since I will almost surely be be voting straight Republican in 2022, most likely all the candidates I support will be Pro-Life. That doesn't meant that Pro-Life is my position. I support them for other reasons. I am also not pro choice. My one hard opinion is that I don't like late term abortions but given the right circumstances, I could vote for somebody who supports that since it is low priority. I foolishly supported Granholm the first time so I probably already have done so. 

 

[peenie 1,696]

2 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

My one hard opinion is that I don't like late term abortions.

But isn’t China known for having selective abortions? Hence, the imbalance of males?

It just seems to me that abortion in the United States is about control and abortion in China is about choice.

 

[Voltaire 4,571]

25 minutes ago, peenie said:

But isn’t China known for having selective abortions? Hence, the imbalance of males?

It just seems to me that abortion in the United States is about control and abortion in China is about choice.

 

China is different and not germaine to the domestic US conversation, and the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote, but here's what's going on.

First, Straight up. China is about control in everything, especially in comparison to the US on every issue. Full stop. This country sucks in that regard.

Although Xi Jinping has screwed up most everything his predecessors had been doing, with this issue, singularly and uniquely, he's actually been an improvement. The central planning idiots have totally , screwed up their demographic but now the policies are changing. Before when China had a one-child policy, it was like you said there would be selective abortions because parents wanted their only child to be a boy. So then they banned doctors from telling parents what gender they were seeing on untrasounds. That's the issue that has plagued two generations of Chinese but is easing up. First the policy shifted to : "if the first is a girl, you can have two." Next came "you can have two", As of last year, it's now three and they are actively promoting three but the young people aren't complying because of how difficult it is to get established and start a family.

When I first came here, China was practicing forced abortions on unmarried women and women with their second child. I think of all the nice doctors and nurses that I met when we delivered, on, two, three babies over here, and I know deep down, that all of them are trained in abortion and almost surely all of them participated in forced abortion over their careers such that they are numb to the practice. In that dystopian environment, "pro-choice" takes the opposite meaning. Now that the government realizes they focked up and have to deal with an aging, mushroom shaped demographic curve, they don't engage in forced abortions any more.

[jerryskids 5,248]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

So what should a normal nice woman do? If she has unprotected sex with her boyfriend then aren’t they both equally at fault? Yet, only she gets pregnant. All of the responsibility of caring for that unborn child will fall squarely on her shoulders. The man has no responsibility until the child can be proven genetically to be his and a court order makes him pay. No court order can make him be a good father or even visit the child if he doesn’t want. The mother bares the burden of an unwanted pregnancy not the man under the current rules of our society. It’s wishful thinking that most men would step up and be emotionally and financially responsible (as my culture of men has shown that it’s not the case). The government will have to be the daddy to all of these unwanted babies.

Imagine if they got rid of abortion in China when couples were only allowed to have one child? I doubt abortion was seen as a contraception method for the poor and irresponsible. 

I'm fine with men bearing their half of the responsibility.  We certainly have the technology to prove if it is his kid.  Until men have a share of the responsibility, they will continue to act without it.  The soft bigotry of low expectations.   

[Masshole 642]

 

[TimHauck 1,830]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:36 PM, jerryskids said:

I think those things can be explored, but you bring up a larger point.  The radical feminist position is that it isn't FAIR that women have to do the childbearing thing, and in doing so not reap all of the awesome benefits of casual, meaningless, unprotected sex that men do.  One can argue how "awesome" it really is for women, because they aren't generally programmed to work that way, and that's because... the males and females of our species have different roles in the procreation process.  Sorry not sorry, that's just how it is.

If we're being fairsy, women live on average 5.4 years longer than men.

Ignore the decline which is mildly disturbing, maybe Covid?  Anyway, 5.4 more years of life is not exactly fair, should men get compensated for their earlier demise?   

You seem to be suggesting that women want to be compensated for having babies in general. I’m really just talking about them being compensated for NOT having a baby they don’t want.  People on this board keep talking about there being too many criminals etc, well this is only going to make it worse.

Yes I’m sure the response will be “well don’t get pregnant then,” but even outside of the extreme examples like rape, you also have instances where contraception was used and didn’t work, or even cases where maybe the person initially thought they could raise the kid but then the situation changes (dad disappears, family cuts them off, etc).  And even in cases where it’s just stupidity, there are a ton of things that can happen as the result of being stupid. But others don’t involve adding another human to the world.  I don’t think it’s fair to force that on someone (especially a teenager) for making a mistake that’s not a crime (referring to having sex in the first place).  So yeah, if you want to not allow them to “murder a baby,” I can probably get on board with it.  But make sure the mother is compensated and that the baby actually has a chance for a good life.

 

[Masshole 642]

20 hours ago, peenie said:

So what should a normal nice woman do? If she has unprotected sex with her boyfriend then aren’t they both equally at fault? Yet, only she gets pregnant. All of the responsibility of caring for that unborn child will fall squarely on her shoulders. The man has no responsibility until the child can be proven genetically to be his and a court order makes him pay. No court order can make him be a good father or even visit the child if he doesn’t want. The mother bares the burden of an unwanted pregnancy not the man under the current rules of our society. It’s wishful thinking that most men would step up and be emotionally and financially responsible (as my culture of men has shown that it’s not the case). The government will have to be the daddy to all of these unwanted babies.

Imagine if they got rid of abortion in China when couples were only allowed to have one child? I doubt abortion was seen as a contraception method for the poor and irresponsible. 

Good points but futile.   It's a biological reality that women bear the children.   Sucks for them when one night of letting your guard down can result in a  lifetime of issues and commitments.  But it's like getting angry about the weather.     It's not going to change it.   

As someone who has employed a lot of people and managed payrolls I will say that the systems put in place to ensure that a guy is at least financially supporting their children are all there.   The legal structures are all there too.   Maybe Massachusetts does it better than others, I don't know the state by state rules/laws.   But I saw the child support deductions that were made from employee's pay.     There is no solution to a guy being a sh!tbag and doing nothing and not earning or keeping what they make off the books and therefore not having pay that can be garnered.   Or for the guy just being a sh!tbag and a bad father.   But if that's the guy you chose to take the risk of a pregnancy with, it's not the gov'ts responsibility to make better choices for you.   

I think most people can accept abortion up to somewhere around 15-20 weeks but after that you are talking about a being with a heartbeat.    The solution to a night's bad choices is to end that heartbeat?    What did that kid do to deserve that?   They weren't any part of the bad decisions that lead to them being created.     

If the woman can't handle the responsibility of a child, either get the abortion done right away or carry to term and then adoption or foster care.    

I think a lot of people, me included, have a bad feeling that the reason why there are so many scenarios like the one you outline is because abortion is (was?) relatively easy to find/get and we wonder if that isn't incentivizing that behavior.     And maybe if abortion wasn't so easy and was more rare - there wouldn't be so many "mistakes" that led to the ending of a human life?   

[TimHauck 1,830]

16 minutes ago, Masshole said:

I think most people can accept abortion up to somewhere around 15-20 weeks but after that you are talking about a being with a heartbeat.    The solution to a night's bad choices is to end that heartbeat?    What did that kid do to deserve that?   They weren't any part of the bad decisions that lead to them being created.   

Well unfortunately I think there are quite a few in this thread (as well as in the governments in about 9 states) that think even allowing it up to 15-20 weeks is not enough.

[peenie 1,696]

90% of abortions occur before the 12th week. 
Just FYI, the reason a poor person wouldn’t have an abortion right away (before the 6th week) is not that they didn’t know they were pregnant earlier but that being poor means you truly don’t have any money. It takes time to get the money to afford an abortion. 
 

The only women I’ve ever known to have an abortion after the 12th week are women who wanted their baby and were pregnant with a baby who was brain dead. It’s a horror to have a late term abortion. No one would do it on a whim. You have to deliver the baby.

[peenie 1,696]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,779]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

90% of abortions occur before the 12th week. 
Just FYI, the reason a poor person wouldn’t have an abortion right away (before the 6th week) is not that they didn’t know they were pregnant earlier but that being poor means you truly don’t have any money. It takes time to get the money to afford an abortion. 
 

The only women I’ve ever known to have an abortion after the 12th week are women who wanted their baby and were pregnant with a baby who was brain dead. It’s a horror to have a late term abortion. No one would do it on a whim. You have to deliver the baby.

There should be a charity that pays for abortions for those that can’t afford it. But then a talking point goes away. 

[jerryskids 5,248]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

You seem to be suggesting that women want to be compensated for having babies in general. I’m really just talking about them being compensated for NOT having a baby they don’t want.  People on this board keep talking about there being too many criminals etc, well this is only going to make it worse.

Yes I’m sure the response will be “well don’t get pregnant then,” but even outside of the extreme examples like rape, you also have instances where contraception was used and didn’t work, or even cases where maybe the person initially thought they could raise the kid but then the situation changes (dad disappears, family cuts them off, etc).  And even in cases where it’s just stupidity, there are a ton of things that can happen as the result of being stupid. But others don’t involve adding another human to the world.  I don’t think it’s fair to force that on someone (especially a teenager) for making a mistake that’s not a crime (referring to having sex in the first place).  So yeah, if you want to not allow them to “murder a baby,” I can probably get on board with it.  But make sure the mother is compensated and that the baby actually has a chance for a good life.

 

OK, let me do a reset because yesterday I thought you were saying something different.  You are saying if a woman wants to give it up for adoption, pay all of the costs including health care and lost wages.  I could negotiated with this.  I'm much more into the concept of HC costs than lost wages.  For HC costs I would entertain making those available to all pregnant women independent of adoption intention.  All pregnant women should have some level of care in this country.  And this would help to avoid incentivizing "unnatural behaviors" like lying about giving it up for adoption just to get the sweet HC. I'd even consider some universal-type coverage for post-partum care -- a ridiculous amount of women have issues shortly after giving birth, but our system is only good at helping them up to the delivery, then we toss the moms back onto the street (this is somewhat independent of wealth and race BTW).

Lost wages, meh, I'm back to unnatural behaviors.  And unless there are problems with the pregnancy, most women can work for most of the time.  But perhaps there could be carveouts for all 15 of the women doing hard, manual labor jobs?   

[TimHauck 1,830]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There should be a charity that pays for abortions for those that can’t afford it. But then a talking point goes away. 

Isn’t that Planned Parenthood?

[Baker Boy 1,490]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:20 AM, TimHauck said:

Honestly I don't really follow politics that closely, enlighten me.    How is it not hypocritical to simultaneously say "overturning Roe v Wade is just giving power back to the states!" and "putting in a nationwide ban on abortion is just an example of federalism!"?

The SCOTUS does not have the authority to set policy. The Democrats had 50 years to codify Roe v Wade and did nothing.

[TimHauck 1,830]

34 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

OK, let me do a reset because yesterday I thought you were saying something different.  You are saying if a woman wants to give it up for adoption, pay all of the costs including health care and lost wages.  I could negotiated with this.  I'm much more into the concept of HC costs than lost wages.  For HC costs I would entertain making those available to all pregnant women independent of adoption intention.  All pregnant women should have some level of care in this country.  And this would help to avoid incentivizing "unnatural behaviors" like lying about giving it up for adoption just to get the sweet HC. I'd even consider some universal-type coverage for post-partum care -- a ridiculous amount of women have issues shortly after giving birth, but our system is only good at helping them up to the delivery, then we toss the moms back onto the street (this is somewhat independent of wealth and race BTW).

Lost wages, meh, I'm back to unnatural behaviors.  And unless there are problems with the pregnancy, most women can work for most of the time.  But perhaps there could be carveouts for all 15 of the women doing hard, manual labor jobs?   

Well yeah I can get on board with what you’re saying, but that’s a whole separate thread.

I’d argue that the tossing onto the street isn’t really independent of wealth though.  A mom who doesn’t have to work or has an in-home nanny/au pair is certainly in a better position.

I would agree that “most” women can work most of the time, but for one I’d include missed time to due doctor’s appointments.  But also there’s at least a couple other occupations where they can’t such as athletes and dancers.

[jerryskids 5,248]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Well yeah I can get on board with what you’re saying, but that’s a whole separate thread.

I’d argue that the tossing onto the street isn’t really independent of wealth though.  A mom who doesn’t have to work or has an in-home nanny/au pair is certainly in a better position.

I would agree that “most” women can work most of the time, but for one I’d include missed time to due doctor’s appointments.  But also there’s at least a couple other occupations where they can’t such as athletes and dancers.

My point regarding the post-natal care is that we really don't provide much, independent of situation.  Of course a rich person is more likely to be taken to an ER or regular doc if they aren't feeling well.  And really, you thought I meant 15 for realz and came up with two (relatively obscure) additional careers for, what, to be argumentative when I'm agreeing with you?

[Cloaca du jour 2,071]

Roe or wade...the only way illegals can cross the Rio Grande.

[weepaws 2,480]

How about they don’t get to cross period. 

[Voltaire 4,571]

4 hours ago, Cloaca du jour said:

Roe or wade...the only way illegals can cross the Rio Grande.

All my life I heard how it's dangerous and people die crossing that river. They do die but I don't know how since all the video footage I see shows that the water barely flows and only comes up to their thighs. What a 4th rate river, more like a stream.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,614]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

All my life I heard how it's dangerous and people die crossing that river. They do die but I don't know how since all the video footage I see shows the the water that barely flows and only comes up to their thighs. What a 4th rate river, more like a stream.

That’s cause the part where they drown is like 200 miles away I think.  They figured out they increase their odds if they travel in mexico

[TheNewGirl 1,043]

On 7/3/2022 at 10:49 AM, Baker Boy said:

The SCOTUS does not have the authority to set policy. The Democrats had 50 years to codify Roe v Wade and did nothing.

Obama had the chance most recently, and decided not to as it became "lower on his priority list." 

He ran on "codifying" and then backed out within his first 100 days. 

[Masshole 642]

 

[jerryskids 5,248]

Biden is signing an EO to try to assuage the rabid dogs in his party and give the appearance that he is DOING SOMETHING!  The whole protection for out of state abortions is such a dog whistle; no state is going to try to make it illegal, it would get insta shot down by the courts.  But, he's doing something!

Quote

Biden to sign executive order to help safeguard access to abortion, contraception

Jeff Mason

Fri, July 8, 2022 at 4:03 AM·2 min read

 

 

 

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden will sign an executive order on Friday to help safeguard women's access to abortion and contraception after the Supreme Court last month overturned the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion, the White House said.

Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from supporters, particularly progressives, to take action after the landmark decision, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women's reproductive rights.

Biden will direct the Health and Human Services Department to take action to protect and expand access to "medication abortion" approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the White House said.

He will also direct the department to ensure women have access to emergency medical care, family planning services, and contraception, including intrauterine devices (IUDs.)

Biden's attorney general and White House counsel will convene pro bono attorneys and other organizations to provide legal counsel for patients seeking an abortion as well as abortion providers.

"Such representation could include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek medical care," the White House said in a statement.

The Supreme Court's ruling restored states' ability to ban abortion. As a result, women with unwanted pregnancies face the choice of traveling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online, or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion.

Biden has condemned the court's ruling.

The issue may help drive Democrats to the polls in the November midterm elections, when Republicans have a chance of taking control of Congress. Democrats have a slim majority in the House of Representatives and control the evenly divided Senate through Vice President Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote.

Biden's executive order on Friday is also aimed at protecting patients' privacy and ensuring safety for mobile abortion clinics at state borders, and it directs the establishment of a task force to coordinate the administration's response on reproductive health care access, the White House said.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-sign-executive-order-help-110349287.html

[Hardcore troubadour 12,779]

War on condoms 

[MDC 5,921]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Biden is signing an EO to try to assuage the rabid dogs in his party and give the appearance that he is DOING SOMETHING!  The whole protection for out of state abortions is such a dog whistle; no state is going to try to make it illegal, it would get insta shot down by the courts.  But, he's doing something!

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-sign-executive-order-help-110349287.html

I thought the TX trigger law allowed private citizens to sue people who “facilitate” an abortion ie drive people out of state to get one? 

[TheNewGirl 1,043]

I'd like to see what he's actually signing and how it reads....the post above indicates that he's signing something that's making other groups "take action." Soooo...if they dn't take action, it's nothing? 

[jerryskids 5,248]

31 minutes ago, MDC said:

I thought the TX trigger law allowed private citizens to sue people who “facilitate” an abortion ie drive people out of state to get one? 

I... don't think so.  I tried googling it and saw one reference in a WaPo article from a year ago, but I don't see mention of it in recent articles.  For example:

Quote

With the end of Roe, Texans will have to travel long distances for legal abortions

Texans who want to access abortion at any stage of pregnancy will have to travel over state lines, look beyond the U.S.-Mexico border or operate outside of the law, while others will carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

All of Texas’ neighboring states — except New Mexico — are expected to ban abortion to varying degrees. New Mexico is expected to become a “haven state,” where abortion remains legal and largely accessible. That state currently has six abortion clinics and is gearing up for an influx of patients. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of the Supreme Court case, has said it’s relocating to New Mexico.

But even the closest New Mexico clinic is a 10-hour drive from Dallas and 12 hours from Houston — Texas’ two largest population centers. Abortion advocates are creating networks and strengthening existing ones to help people travel to states that allow abortion. But that’s not an option for everyone. Neesha Davé, deputy director at Lilith Fund, an Austin-based abortion fund, said the impact of these abortion laws will not be felt equally by all.

“Folks who have resources, folks who are wealthy, will always be able to access the care they need, even if they have to navigate countless barriers to be able to do so,” Davé told The Texas Tribune in May. “But it is lower-income folks, people of color, the folks that we are serving on our hotline who are disproportionately impacted by abortion bans.”

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-ruling/

I'm open to being shown wrong though, in which case I would also ask if anyone had been sued under that law.  As I had said, I can't imagine it would stand judicial scrutiny.