Supporters of #SB8 have long insisted that it didn't punish the pregnant woman, just those who *facilitated* abortions.

But by barring medically supervised abortions after six weeks, it forces those who can't travel to self-induce, which opens the door to prosecutions like this.
In other words, this is not a prosecution *under* SB8, but it sure as heck is a prosecution *because of* SB8.

And it's an incredibly ominous harbinger of what the world will look like far beyond Texas if #SCOTUS overrules Roe.
As @thewindingchain points out, the Texas murder statute "does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is . . . conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child."

So either the prosecutors are causing trouble, or they're using a different theory here:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @steve_vladeck

Mar 27
1. Folks have criticized Wednesday's #SCOTUS ruling in the WI state redistricting case because the majority had nothing to say about Purcell, after relying on it to justify stays in the AL cases in February.

IMHO, Purcell *is* what's wrong here, but not for the obvious reason:
2. The Purcell principle is the idea, articulated by #SCOTUS in 2006, that courts should not block election rules as the election approaches to avoid the risk of voter confusion. It's been heavily criticized for its subjectivity by @rickhasen, @ProfNickStephan, @wuc3, and others.
3. One critique of Wednesday's ruling is that the Court didn't even mention Purcell in blocking WI state maps adopted by the WI Supreme Court, after appearing to rely on Purcell in February to allow an AL map blocked by a lower court back into effect months before election day.
Read 9 tweets
Mar 23
#BREAKING: #SCOTUS uses shadow docket to summarily throw out Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling adopting Governor Evers’s redistricting maps.

Sotomayor and Kagan publicly dissent: Image
Here’s a link; it’s not on #SCOTUS’s website yet:

utexas.box.com/s/7ca2iocqmaz9…
The Court threw out the *state* maps, but it also denied emergency relief re: the congressional maps: Image
Read 4 tweets
Mar 22
On Cornyn's claim that Judge Jackson called President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld "war criminals": While a public defender, she filed a habeas petition on behalf of a #GTMO detainee alleging that he had been tortured in violation of int'l law; Bush and Rumsfeld were respondents.
Here's the petition:

scribd.com/document/55663…

Needless to say, the implication that, by filing this brief on behalf of her client, #KBJ *specifically* called Bush and Rumsfeld "war criminals" is, at the very least, misleading.
It's also worth noting that allegations of government torture of detainees like the ones in the petition have been to a significant degree borne out by subsequent investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA RDI program:

feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/…
Read 6 tweets
Mar 7
Over three dissents (Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch, JJ.), #SCOTUS has *denied* a request to block congressional maps drawn by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurred. In his view, although the question is significant, it ought to be decided on the merits docket.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 28
The @NRO claims that Judge Jackson "has a discouraging record of her decisions being reversed."

The data is to the contrary. In her 2021 Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, she listed 11/562 district court rulings that were reversed = 1.96%:

judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

That's ... low.
I don't think reversal rates tell us much except in extreme cases; reversals can be for any reason (and from any direction), and they are hardly proof that the reversing court was *right.*

But if this is going to be a line of attack, it's worth stressing how ... empty ... it is.
Here's a 2010 study, for instance, finding an average reversal rate for district judges of 14.4%:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Again, I think this data, too, is noisy. But the notion that Judge Jackson is an outlier here is correct only in the *opposite* direction from the critique.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 10
In my research into the history of #SCOTUS’s shadow docket, I’ve long been puzzled at why, circa 1980, the Court stopped formally adjourning over the summer — and instead simply “rose” for its recess, preserving its ability to rule without formally returning for a “Special Term.”
With a big assist from superstar RA @bonnie_e_d, we now have the answer: It was a response to the sharp rise in emergency applications related to impending executions — which (unsurprisingly) ticked up sharply starting in 1979, as states began to carry out post-Gregg executions.
Why did that require the Court to remain in session? Before 1972, individual Justices routinely handled execution-related applications.

The problem by 1980 is that the Court was bitterly divided over the death penalty, so there were reasons to not give one Justice the last word.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(