On May 19th, 2021, Texas passed a law prohibiting abortion once the baby in the womb has a heartbeat. This abortion restriction was unique in that its enforcement mechanism was not necessarily criminal; it has no criminal enforcement by the government and it allowed for private lawsuits against abortion providers with a $10,000 fine if found liable. Senate Bill 8 “requires that abortion providers check for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion, and bans them from carrying out the procedure if one is detected. It makes exceptions if a physician believes a medical emergency exists.”, as reported by CNN.
Immediately after the bill passed, abortion providers in Texas brought a federal lawsuit against the state for restricting abortion, hoping that Roe V. Wade (The SCOTUS case that legalized abortions throughout the united states) would be used to block the Texas law.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal lawsuit by abortion providers challenging the constitutionality of the abortion restriction can proceed against some defendants even before the law is enforced against any specific abortion provider.
“However, the Supreme Court allowed the Texas law to remain in effect during that challenge, which will proceed in a lower federal court. The ruling does not address whether a majority of the Supreme Court believes the ban is unconstitutional.”, as reported by CNBC.
Despite the mixed ruling by the court; allowing abortion providers’ lawsuits to proceed against the Texas government but also allowing the law to remain in place, for now, Democrats are extremely dissatisfied. Because the SCOTUS did not totally strike down the Texas law on Friday, pro-abortion progressives in politics and media have been viciously condemning the ruling.
President Biden said in a statement that the law protecting babies “unleashes constitutional chaos and empowers self-anointed enforcers to have devastating impacts…significantly impair women’s access to the health care they need, particularly for communities of color and individuals with low incomes.”
Vice President Harris said in a statement that “This decision is not the last word on Roe v. Wade, and we will not stand by and allow our nation to go back to the days of back-alley abortions…We will not abide by cash incentives for virtual vigilantes and intimidation for patients. We will use every lever of our Administration to defend the right to safe and legal abortion — and to strengthen that right.”
But Dictator Newsom of California went far beyond his comrades’ condemnations.
One day after the SCOTUS refused to totally block the Texas law, Newsom released the following statement:
The California Dictator is promising to use the state government to completely ban all firearms and parts, and he is going to vindictively use the same enforcement mechanism as the Texas law uses to restrict abortions. Newsome seemingly plans to punish anyone who sells any item that could be considered a ‘part’ of a firearm in California. Of course, once the legislation is actually drafted, it could also include a total ban on possession (as opposed to just manufacture and distribution) of a firearm or firearm part in the state.
Personally, I hope that this law passes in California. Once all firearms are totally banned in California without any exceptions (except for government officials, of course), the few remaining citizens of California who desire freedom will leave for a state with more freedom. This would accelerate the necessary increase in polarization among the states in order for balkanization to occur. California will grow closer to being completely communist-authoritarian, and states like New Hampshire would see a large increase in pro-liberty immigrants. Of course, once legislation like HR127 that bans firearm possession passes on the federal level, gun owners from every state will inevitably move to places like New Hampshire, and separation from the union would come within a matter of months.