American Bar Association Abandons Neutrality & Goes 'Woke' Attacking Texas Over Abortion Law

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2021 – The American Bar Association has abandoned its normally neutral political posture and sided with the Biden Administration's baby-killing pro-abortion policies by attacking Texas' new constitutional 'heartbeat' law by filing an amicus brief against the state asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the now liberal-leaning organization to sue the Lone Star State.  

The American Bar Association filed an amicus curiae brief Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the federal government to bring suit in federal court to hold Texas accountable for asserted constitutional violations in the state’s recently enacted abortion law that bans most abortions after six weeks and makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.

The amicus brief contends the Texas law, known as S.B. 8, unlawfully seeks to deny federal judicial review and federal executive enforcement of the United States Constitution and disregards court precedents holding that the Constitution protects the right to abortion until the point of fetal viability. 

.“Consistent with its mission and its policy, the ABA files this brief to support the federal government’s ability to hold Texas accountable for its unconstitutional acts and to ensure continuing access to the courts to protect fundamental constitutional rights,” the brief said.

The brief comes in the case of United States of America v. State of Texas, et al., involving the Texas statute, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on May 19. The Texas law was crafted to attempt to prevent judicial review. The law prohibits state officials from enforcing it and allows private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.The law provides that plaintiffs can collect at least $10,000 in statutory damages and recover their legal fees if they win in court.

On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court refused to block the law, but the majority decision stressed that the court was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality. Then, on Oct. 22, it again left the law in place but granted an unusually speedy review, skipping appeals court proceedings to hear arguments Nov. 1. 

In its amicus brief, the ABA argues that the ability of the federal executive and the judiciary to guarantee constitutional rights is a cornerstone of American liberty. 

“Since the founding era, the supremacy of the Constitution and federal judicial review of constitutional questions have been fundamental to the functioning of American democracy,” the brief said. 

The ABA, the brief said, has consistently recognized that these principles form the foundation of the American system of judicially protected constitutional rights. The association has long supported the federal courts’ constitutional role in the nation’s system of checks and balances to preserve and protect individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

The ABA brief also contends that Texas’ “weaponization of its courts to allow enforcement of its laws by private citizens dooms its attempts to avoid liability for its constitutional violations,” citing Shelley v. Kramer, in which the court held that states violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when their courts enforced race-based restrictive covenants by private citizens. 

The ABA amicus brief contends that the Texas law’s authorization of private lawsuits interferes with the constitutional right to abortion before viability.  

Texas also seeks to ensconce its law beyond the reach of federal review despite the law’s unquestioned disregard for the court’s precedents holding that the Constitution protects the right to abortion until the point of fetal viability, according to the brief.   

The brief argues that allowing such action could encourage other states to take similar actions, such as, for example, allowing private suits against handgun sellers.

“So long as a state did nothing more than allow and enforce such suits, no federal court, including this one, could do anything about it,” the brief said. “This court has never countenanced such lawlessness.”

Oral arguments are expected Nov. 1. The ABA brief in the case is here.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Just reading the first paragraph of this article it's easy to see Yantis Green has no business speaking about neutrality.  Try and have some as a reporter sir. 

Fine, but that doesn’t really explain why you think the article is a “partisan hack piece”. Maybe if you were more specific, because imo, both points of view were presented well.

What do you have a problem with and I’ll be happy to try and clear it up for you. But first, you have to admit that abortion is the taking of a human life deal?

My problem is that he speaks of this group being partisan and then rights a partisan hack piece that is listed under news and not opinion.  Your opinion on abortion has no bearing on my comment, like yantis' hack piece its simply opinion.  

Basically every news outlet does this so what’s the problem? It’s nothing new. Seems you just want left leaning outlets to write their opinions as fact and not anyone else. I personally read articles and form my own opinion off of several various ones.

This is how it should be done, anyone who fully trusts their government for truth or even a media outlet is a born idiot. 

Just pointing out that all media puts up articles that can be viewed as opinion but don’t label it as such. You seem upset because it’s something you disagree with. Do you say the same about other media that you do agree with?

You keeping adding my views that you have no clue of.  I do like your so what everyone else does it argument though, solid very 2021. 

How is anyone supposed to know what your “views” are if you refuse to explain yourself? Just come out with it for Christ’s sake!

My statement has nothing to do with my views or yours. I simply said the first paragraph is complete partisan hack reporting, in a story talking about the partisan acts of another group.  

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close