Civil Rights Attorney: SCOTUS Should've Never Let Texas Abortion Law Stand 1

Civil Rights Attorney: SCOTUS Should’ve Never Let Texas Abortion Law Stand


Civil rights attorney and fmr. NYC mayoral candidate Maya Wiley comments on AG Garland's response to a restrictive Texas abortion law.

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#Texas #AbortionRights #SCOTUS


    1. Serena Joy Barrett’s group People of Praise _literally_ used to call its female members Handmaids until someone caught them up to modern society. 😆

  1. Americans are great at replacing bad with worse. Mistake Iranians made and got stuck with it for 40 years now. Now America, Turkey, Italy, and Brazil are choking on their bad decisions. “Every Nation Deserves its Government.” KM

    1. @Joe even more so, hundreds of millions of tax payers money goes to PPH. Why are “we the people” paying for it? If PPH wants to be a business, the operate like on and stop using government funding. But that won’t happen because they would probably go out of business

    2. I think a man should be able to make a woman get an abortion , if the woman doesn’t want to get an abortion, the man gets out of child support, your body you choice, my wallet my choice

    1. @Texas Abortionist HUNTER evidently you are wrong as was made clear in this video.. but in case you missed it, i was pointing to you!

    2. @Jane Doe I’m ok with the vasectomy, as long as the man has an equal say in whether or not the abortion is ok. UT no woman will let a man have a say in it, even though he is 50% responsible for the pregnancy. So if you want it to be equal rights, then the man should ha e a say in the abortion of his child.

    3. @Shannon Taylor if there are universal vasectomies reversed only if the man can afford to raise a child then there’s no problem.

    4. Yes if the woman is at least 24 weeks pregnant and because neither you nor anyone else has the right to decide if a woman remains pregnant or not . No one has the right to force a woman to get pregnant or to remain pregnant or to have an abortion . FULL STOP .

    1. @Matthew Loutner Where’s the lie? Abortion is a human constant. Babies aren’t always wanted. Humans will resort to desperation in the face of a lack of options. Even god passed on a method of abortion in the bible, if you’re the religious sort, so leaning on religion doesn’t really fly either.

      Ad homenims aren’t a great argument either. Nothing is wrong with my family. I’m simply a realist that isn’t trapped in a bubble. Of course in a perfect world every baby would be wanted but we live in a world that is so far removed from that it’s unrealistic to even wish for it.

    2. @Dicky McGeezacks The lie is you are trying to put me on the spot instead of focusing on the real problem. That is twisting reality into a pretzel — which is basically lying.

      Did I cause any of this? I am just saying murder is not the answer.

      God did not pass on a method of abortion. His VERY FIRST commandment to man is . . .

      “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth.”

    3. @Matthew Loutner No, I’m pretty focused on the real problem. The real problem is all the manpower illegitimately focused on taking rights away from women, and people not realizing that outlawing abortion not only delegitimizes the agency of women, but it creates far more problems than it solves. No one should be celebrating severely limiting or outlawing abortion. What do *you* think the “real problem” is?

      If you’re a christian you should probably look into reading your *entire* book. The bible, contrary to popular belief is not as prolife as you might think.

    4. @Dicky McGeezacks only wondered. Before I was born my mom had still born twin boys. my mom and dad lived in the country so my dad tossed the twins into a dry creek hoping wild animals would drag the twins off and eat them there by keeping the country side clean. Germans are very clean people they hate a miss. But you said you didn’t see any babies sooo.


    1. The are Federslist society members fast tracked to do dark donor money. Alito gorsch Pence Amy Kavaughna Grassley McConnell. His wife. Cruz gaetz Sasser Mike Lee sessions barr. So far are all fedsoc members. They twist things a wee bit on law and have infiltrated our course they are all in positions and need weeding out. They want to go back to 1600s men plantation elitists and women will be locked up as wives so they can mess around. Like past. The are an society. That say ate Christian and are all over backed by big money to get they’re way on laws. Polluters

  3. Wow! The Supreme Court Judges really need to look at themselves – are they driven by their personal beliefs first and foremost or are they acting in accordance with the Constitution?

    1. @Linda Scott As a male I wouldn’t be opposed to that if it were true. In theory vasectomies are reversible, but much of the time that doesn’t work. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I’ve heard that about 50% of the time reversing a vasectomy doesn’t work.

    2. @Harry Lippidardo Do you have any idea how much better off we’d be if people actually read the constitution instead of just saying that everything that they disagree with is unconstitutional?

    3. @Elviscerator How much of what the gov does is actually Constitutional?? Start with that. I have my pocket constitution with me all the time.

    4. I think a man should be able to make a woman get an abortion , if the woman doesn’t want to get an abortion, the man gets out of child support, your body you choice, my wallet my choice

  4. You have to wonder if the talking heads have actually read the constitution and amendments. Judicial interpretation changes over time, the constitution does not without Amendment.

    1. Yes, it doesn’t change. A federal ruling removed the threat of harm for 6 week abortions, which essentially ruled Texas’s former law unconstitutional. Texas’s new law implies in Section 2 that it is relying on the fact that law still exists on its books as its interest. The fact that Texas didn’t repeal its law is irrelevant to the fact that it has been ruled to be unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade was not the first time the Supreme Court ruled a right to privacy. That right was also explained in a case about Planned Parenthood helping married couples know about and use contraceptives. That was illegal in Connecticut before 1965.
      Now, let’s talk about what Texas’s law did constitutionally since you claim you’re so interested in upholding it.
      1) Texas’s law changed the evidentiary standard to preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a violation of Amendment 6.
      2) Texas’s law removed the right to self-incriminate as the Supreme Court removed all criminal and civil harm for just performing the abortion, which is Amendment 5.
      3) As Texas’s law has a fundamental race condition in that a person must have fully paid another complainant before they can claim that as a defense versus the relief to another complainant, that person might actually pay an arbitrarily large, unaffordable fine, which is double jeopardy on steroids, which violates Amendment 6.
      4) A defendant has a right to a public defender. A respondent does not. That violates Amendment 6.
      5) A defendant has to face only the decision of 1 agency in the jurisdiction where the act took place. The respondent has to face the decision of a multitude of agencies, each with an ability to pursue a complaint. That violates Amendment 6.
      6) Texas’s law changes the number of jurors necessary to penalize the person. It takes 12 for a criminal trial, but only 9 in a civil trial. That is also a part of the violation of Amendment 5.
      7) The complainant can choose where the venue will be where as a prosecutor could not unless a request were made of the judge, which is also a violation of Amendment 6.
      Defendants still get rights even if you do not agree with them having those rights, right? Before you state that Texas is just letting citizens sue for it, as I stated Texas cannot have the civil harm to allow anyone to sue on its behalf in civil courts, and its previous law was not civil in nature.

  5. I’m making chicken and dumplings…collard greens….and thawing out a Sara Lee chocolate cake for dessert…..

  6. Very good sign to see the Justice Department standing up for the Constitution and basic rights and freedoms.

    This would not have happened under tfg corrupt, pro-fascism, anti-Constitution JD. Elections matter!

  7. I just wonder what would happen if a blue state enacted a word-for-word identical law, except instead of targeting abortion, it targeted firearm and ammunition possession? Just out of curiosity.

    1. @Mark Cicero Exactly right. States are not allowed to make end runs around the constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    2. The media would support it 100 percent and the Democrats would claim it’s the most popular law, but it would be unconstitutional! However with killing babies the question of constitutionality has been open since the original decision!

    3. I think a man should be able to make a woman get an abortion , if the woman doesn’t want to get an abortion, the man gets out of child support, your body you choice, my wallet my choice

    4. @fpskiller 123 should a woman be able to force a man to get a vasectomy ? No one has the right to force a woman to get pregnant or to remain pregnant or to get an abortion . FULL STOP !

    1. I think a man should be able to make a woman get an abortion , if the woman doesn’t want to get an abortion, the man gets out of child support, your body you choice, my wallet my choice

  8. Now the state would turn sister on sister and brother on brother. Separation of church and state is paramount considering the growing number of non religious citizens.

  9. The Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982) case could show that the Texas Abortion ban is unconstitutional… The SC ruled 8 to 1 that the State cannot delegate private enterprise to enforce parts of the law…

  10. Texans stormed the capital to stop a legitimate election, again they are using raw power to enforce their will apon their people … the signs of autocrats in the making and we ignore it at our own peril.

  11. You select Mr. Beer as chief justice of supreme court, you get justice miscarriage. Ever heard about cause and effect?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.