Breaking: AG Garland announces DOJ will protect women seeking an abortion in Texas

[StarfishSaver]

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that the Justice Department would protect women seeking an abortion in Texas as the agency explores ways to challenge one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.

In a statement, Garland said the department would “protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the” law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

The announcement from the Justice Department comes days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
...
“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities,” Garland said.

He added that the department “will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation” of federal law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/abortion-justice-department-biden-administration-texas/2021/09/06/f9cdc7ba-0f36-11ec-882f-2dd15a067dc4_story.html

[malaise]

1. Get thee to the greatest page

RFN!

[MiniMe]

2. For those that can't access the article

The Post has a paywall. I subscribe to the post as it is my local paper, so I get access with the subscription


Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that the Justice Department would protect women seeking an abortion in Texas as the agency explores ways to challenge one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.

In a statement, Garland said the department would “protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the” law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

The announcement from the Justice Department comes days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court declined to block the Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The law also allows anyone to file a lawsuit against any other person who has aided someone in obtaining an abortion, with the potential for a $10,000 payoff.

“The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities,” Garland said.

[634-5789]

84. TY for posting. Damn paywalls....

[W_HAMILTON]

3. Good to hear.

For any bounty hunter that seeks to claim their bounties in civil court as the Texas law allows, have the feds go after their ass on criminal charges.

[StarfishSaver]

48. I can't believe we're watching Democrats here claim that violence isn't an issue for women in Texas

and criticizing the attorney general for using federal law to protect women from violence and intimidation .

As I said, it's clear that some people just want to complain and attack this administration, no matter what they do.

[PortTack]

63. +1000

[Captain Zero]

106. Right a good test would be after Garland & a couple marshals escort a woman into a clinic

themselves.

Wait for some toothless texan to file for his $10K and wind up in a federal prison.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Legislation is violence

At least the way these republican shits practice it. May they all rot in jail for their attacks on Women and our Constitution.

[Kittycatkat]

45. yes

[hamsterjill]

5. Glad to see this!

Some good news at least.

[H2O Man]

6. Recommended.

Thank you!

[Dream Girl]

7. I don't see how this is a solution. No one is physically blocking entrance to clinics. The federal

Law seems to refer to physical intimation. The Texas law does not do that. The initiation is the threat of being sued. There is no “violent act”. Garland really needs to get on the stick. I’m growing less impressed of him by the day.

[TexasTowelie]

15. It looks like auto-correct caught up with you

twice in that post. Such is life.

[StarfishSaver]

18. I'm quite sure that the Attorney General has a better understanding of federal law than you do

Had you actually read the story, you would have seen that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is not limited to acts of violence. You would also have seen that DOJ's action is not limited to the new Texas law.

But since despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to believe you have a better grasp on the law than Garland, perhaps you can enlighten us on how you propose he "get on the stick." What alternate plan should DOJ follow? Please be sure to cite the supporting statute and case law ...

[George II]

53. From what I've read and seen over the years, Merrick Garland has a brilliant legal mind. He knows...

...what he can and cannot do and how far he can push things.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Lots of people here differ with you - and they surely know better

[Dream Girl]

76. I posted that because I was hoping so someone help me understathis would work against the

Texas Law. I was actually hoping Iwas wrong. No, I have not reviewed the statute nor have I seen any case law that has arisen from the federal statute through the years. I am certainly no expert I earned my JD 30+ years ago and other than a brief stint in the Public Defender’s office I’ve have always been on the corporate side before eventually moving to marketing. I never claimed to have a better grasp on the law than Garland. I know the man is brilliant, but am I the only one frustrated with how slowly they’re moving? They are too scared to hold Trump accountable for his many, many misdeeds. Dot all the I and cross all the t’s, if they must but my God those f*ckwads are growing more enboldened by the day. Somebody better get on the stick. They just seem so timid.

[StarfishSaver]

77. I'm glad to see you've changed your tune.

Given your acknowledgment that you don't actually know more than Garland does, perhaps next time, you'll refrain from insisting he "get on the stick" as of you're an expert on what he should be doing.

[Scrivener7]

125. The nuns in my grammar school used to talk to us just like this.

[StarfishSaver]

127. I understand why

[totodeinhere]

41. I think I understand what you are trying to say. Yes women should be protected from violence.

That is a given. But we need to do more than that. We need to make sure that they can exercise their connotational rights whether there is violence or not. Nobody should be allowed to stop them from making choices about their own body whether there is violence involved or not.

[Politicub]

59. This is one (important) law among many that we have. It is not the only law in the

justice department’s toolbox.

A lot of people seem naive about the breadth and depth of the justice department and its resources.

President Biden has mobilized the executive branch to respond to the injustice in Texas.

[StarfishSaver]

61. But obviously, Biden and DOJ aren't responding quickly or well enough for the armchair experts

"Do something! Do something"

Something

"Not good enough. Do something else!"

What?

"We don't know. But not the something you're doing!"

[Politicub]

68. "Do that thing! That justice thing you should be doing but are not."

“What thing?”

“Omg why ArE yOU AskIng mE? I’m nOt An ExpErt. ThEy shOULd bE dOIng thE thIng..”

[StarfishSaver]

70. Nailed It!

[USALiberal]

62. Did you even read the article???

[Scrivener7]

114. I did and Dream Girl has a point. The main issue here is not about

abortion clinics being under attack. It is about legitimizing vigilante anti abortion lunatics, and it is about eliminating women's access to abortions after a date 6 weeks after their last period. (All the articles get this point wrong. It is not 6 weeks into a pregnancy. It is 6 weeks after the last period. Which essentially means women just aren't able to get abortions at all.)

The remedy proposed is not a remedy for the worst provisions of this law. And the article details the fact that the response to those worst provisions is that we are looking into maybe doing something sometime if we can. That really is not good enough.

And to those arguing that it is unreasonable to complain about a lack of government response so soon after the law passed, this law has been in the works for months. There should have been a response queued up and ready to go. There are women who are pregnant now and can't wait for us to get our acts together.

[StarfishSaver]

118. Since Garland never claimed this s a "remedy," you're knocking down a atrawman

Those of you complaining that warning that DOJ will prosecute violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because you don't think it will stop people from bringing lawsuits under the new state law are completely missing the point.

As I said in another thread, there can be no doubt the new law will embolden vigilantes to take matters into their own hands - it will have ramifications far beyond simply filing lawsuits. It is very likely that intimidation and violence against women and medical providers will ramp up as a direct result of the new law. It's also very likely that state and local authorities will look the other way or wrist slap the perpetrators of these crimes.

Garland has put everyone on notice that DOJ will make it a top priority to prosecute anyone who uses violence or intimidation to interfere with women's ability to obtain abortions.

This is not a small thing.

[Scrivener7]

120. It doesn't address the issues in this law. We should stop pretending that it does.

[StarfishSaver]

122. Garland didn't say this addressed the Texas law and neither did I

In fact, the only people I see claiming the AG's announcement is directed to the law are those who are attacking him because they don't seem to understand what the announcement actually was.

Garland didn't say enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act will directly address the new Texas state law. But, as I said, it certainly is one way to deal with the law's fallout.

And I have no doubt that had Garland not made it a DOJ priority to enforce that federal law in order to protect women seeking abortions from intimidation and violence, when such intimidation and violence ensue in the wake of the new state law, people would attack him for not foreseeing that as a consequence of the new law and not being prepared to do something about it.

[Scrivener7]

123. So it doesn't address the Texas law, but he is announcing in the wake of the passage of the Texas

law, to great fanfare, that he will enforce an existing law.

Forgive me for not being excited.

[StarfishSaver]

126. I'd hardly describe issuing.a written statement as "great fanfare."

And DOJ's activities are limited to enforcing laws - so expecting them to do more doesn't work a lot of sense.

[Scrivener7]

115. I totally agree with you and I find the patronizing responses to your

posts disgusting and ill-informed, to say the least.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15831004

[ismnotwasm]

8. Excellent

[littlemissmartypants]

9. I wish we had a woman for attorney general. nt

[comradebillyboy]

13. He certainly appears to be the wrong man for the job.

[littlemissmartypants]

20. He strikes me as milquetoast. But I guess you don't have to show

Bravado to be tough. He just seems meek. I want a stalwart, take no prisoners, feminist on the job. I'll wait though. I am going to give him a little bit more of a chance before I entirely lose faith.

[kairos12]

23. He looks as lost as Mueller.

[calimary]

33. Yeah, totally get that. And agree.

I was in the mood for a firebrand! And I thought we needed one after the nightmare years of trump. I would have liked to see Garland having spoken up last Thursday evening. But, like you, I'll wait 'n' see, too.

[sheshe2]

11. Good to hear.

Pretty quick work by AG Garland. As the article states this is just the beginning as the agency explores ways to challenge the restrictive law.

Hmm. Thanks for this. Funny only yesterday I was reading that Garland should be fired for not doing anything.

[StarfishSaver]

24. And now people have jumped into this thread to insist that this isn't good enough

Funny how people insist Garland use every tool at DOJ's disposal to fight this law, and then when he does, they yell (from the sidelines, of course) "WRONG TOOL WRONG TOOL!!!"

Still waiting for these folks to cite exactly which federal laws they think DOJ should use to deal with the Texas law.

[calimary]

44. Maybe what's operating here is a notion of how the GOP is utterly MASTERFUL at thinking around

an issue or something they don't like. They are BRILLIANT at maneuvering around it to get THEIR way ANYWAY. They'll stop at NOTHING. While our side is wringing its hands about how to never color outside the lines.

If I didn't STRONGLY, even ARDENTLY dislike and oppose everything they stand for, I could see myself gravitating toward a party that thinks that deviously and doesn't hesitate to act on it. They're unfortunately good at getting bad things done, while our Dems are, just as unfortunately, bad at getting good things done.

I've been saying for awhile now that I wish there were more devious thinkers in OUR party. The GOP has almost too many of 'em. And look what they've been able to accomplish - or all that they've effectively and successfully been able to obstruct.

[StarfishSaver]

46. Interesting

Thanks for sharing.

[Snackshack]

72. It's been abundantly clear.

That the GOP think tanks that write most of their legislation Heritage, Cato etc. run circles around Dems in thinking up creatives ways around the Constitution it’s amendments and established law. Dems have been extremely underpowered for a longtime now and they never seem to close the gap. Probably because they are not willing to throw character, soul, family out the window to achieve that. Which is why the GOP wins most of the time.

Except when they have gone too far and it wakes up enough of the citizenry to vote. But the GOP is putting and end to that as well.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

88. 'Repugs are good at getting bad things done; Dems are bad at getting good things done.'

What a succinct way of describing the nation's political paradigm.

[Scrivener7]

129. Or, maybe, its because the announcement he made doesn't change a damn thing and doesn't

do anything to help those affected by the Texas law.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's it.

[Arazi]

14. The women aren't in trouble and don't need protection. It's their helpers

This means nothing

The law targets anyone who AIDS and abets an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Please cite what federal statute DOJ SHOULD be using

Since you seem to be certain that they're using the wrong one, It shouldn't be difficult for you to cite the federal authority they should be using.

And if you think women who seek or who have had abortions in Texas "aren't in danger and don't need protection," well ... That explains a lot

[Arazi]

96. "As the agency explores ways to challenge the law" is bullshit

Garland has known this was coming for months. Literally. And they have no better response?

And don't fucking play cute with gotchas. Nobody wants women in jeopardy and it's insulting to insinuate any DUer doesn't recognize the risks to pregnant women atm.

My post however was dealing with those outside of the clinic staff, who help a woman get an abortion after 6 weeks and their legal and financial jeopardy now which Merrick Garland does not address.

I am fully supportive of Biden/Harris and can still be critical that DOJ appears unprepared

[StarfishSaver]

97. In other words, you have no idea what they can do right now

And no, lawyers saying they're exploring the options is not bullshit. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. And it's something they cannot fully do until the actual law is passed. Moreover, because there's very little DOJ can do proactively in this situation. They must wait until action is taken under the new law - and they are preparing for all manner of eventualities so they can respond when it is.

This is not an episode of Law & Order where everything is scripted, cut and dried and wrapped up in 48 minutes. And unless you can come up with some specific action they should take right now (and DO something! isn't a thing ...), your criticisms of Garland and DOJ, however well-intentioned, continue to ring hollow.

[Arazi]

98. The law will become fact within the next 10 days

That DOJ can't articulate a response and is still working out how to challenge this, when they've known for months that it was coming, definitely opens them up to critique.

But sure, continue to excoriate any who dare question this approach.

I'm not interested in confrontational conversations here on DU. Respectful dialogue is preferred so I'll leave you to have the last word

[StarfishSaver]

100. Why do you assume "DOJ can't articulate a response"?

And since you believe that there is such a response that should be articulated, what do you think that response should be today?

What exactly should DOJ announce that it's going to do, under what federal statute would they be able to act? And please lay out the facts pursuant to which they will be able to apply the federal statute or statutes you vote.

You may have some difficulty answering that question and for good reason. Many laws, including this one, don't "become fact" until someone takes action pursuant to them. And until that action is taken, a response cannot be launched. Because which federal statute applies - or whether any federal statute applies - depends solely on the particular facts and parties involved.

Because there are myriad possibilities that would lead to many different facts that would need to be addressed under different federal authorities, it's not only extraordinarily difficult but would be egregiously irresponsible for DOJ to preemptively announce what specific action they plan to take other than to say they are exploring all of the possibilities.

[calimary]

130. Just give 'em time on the "the women aren't in trouble" part.

They WILL get to that, too. Sooner or later. The goal is subjugation of women. Ideally, seems to me, they want us out of the boardrooms and back in the kitchens and bedrooms. And we women should get our uppity little selves back to where our “place” is.

[ejbr]

16. When is he gonna announce

That he is going to protect Americans from Trump and the other insurrectionist leadership? I haven't heard him speak on this recently.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

17. This has what to do with abortion in Texas exactly?

If you want to bash Garland for not arresting Trump, why not start an OP about that?

[StarfishSaver]

19. The "Garland's not doing squat" crowd gets really pissed whenever they're proven wrong

[ejbr]

22. I will be ecstatic

If I'm proven wrong. Ecstatic.

[StarfishSaver]

26. I don't know about you, but I'm sure many of the people who reacted as you do won't be "ecstatic"

They'll just be pissed that they were proven wrong ... and then they'll find something else to complain about since nothing anyone does will ever be good enough.

[ejbr]

35. They exist, I'm sure

And my post is more from my frustration than any feeling toward the AG. and though this may not have so much to do with him, but I'm thrilled the insurrectionists are getting a dose of reality in court rooms.

And back to the topic at hand, I am pleased that we have an AG on the side of women and who is taking this outrage seriously. I am rooting for him.

[ejbr]

21. It has to do

With not trusting his mettle to protect anything.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Actually, it has more to do with people who haven't a clue how government or federal law or DOJ work

looking for every excuse possible to trash the Attorney General and President Biden (directly and indirectly) for not taking actions they can't even articulate (Besides "get TOUGH!" DO Something! Play HARDBALL! Lock 'em up NOW!!!&quot .

[ejbr]

28. I am drawing these conclusions

based on the musings of a respected federal prosecutor, not some rando on the internet who thinks they're more knowledgeable than someone extremely familiar with evidence and bringing a case before a Federal Judge. How silly of me.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

31. Oh ok

There is a federal prosecutor bashing his boss. Cool story.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I think they're referring to a former federal prosecutor who now makes their living as a pundit

[AZSkiffyGeek]

38. Is it that one who said we need to nationalize all doctors

Because apparently feds aren't subject to state laws?

[ejbr]

40. Based on that comment

No one working for Teump has no standing to criticize him? Wow

[AZSkiffyGeek]

42. What happened to Trump administration members who criticized him?

Remind me again...

[ejbr]

54. Apologies

I took us down an unnecessary path as his critic is retired and I concur an active federal prosecutor should never critique strategy of AG. Nonetheless, I'm impatient. I have no qualms with Garland, I'm just impatient.

[Cetacea]

105. No need to apologize.

[LanternWaste]

47. It does not follow.

The overuse of logical fallacies seem popular this particular holiday

[ejbr]

56. I agree

I am not only comparing apples and oranges, but also realize an active federal prosecutor should not critique the AG. My bad.

[ejbr]

29. Lol n/t

[StarfishSaver]

30. Do you have a source for your claim that Garland is a Republican?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

32. Because Republicans clerk for liberal justices and get placed on the court by Democrats

[ARPad95]

37. Oops! I thought he was Republican (confused him with someone else). I deleted my comment.

https://ballotpedia.org/Merrick_Garland

Thank you for prompting me to verify.

[StarfishSaver]

39. ...

[Evolve Dammit]

36. Good. Let's see how this plays in Plano. All armed up now with no permit/ training required. Yeehaw

[Goodheart]

49. Hmmmm. So he announces he's going to do what they've already been doing?

This doesn't in any way seem an actual legal, consequential, active counter to the Texas law.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Please state specifically what YOU think DOJ should do right now?

Include in your response the federal laws and authorities that support the mediate action you propose.

[Goodheart]

51. I don't know that I have an answer.

Perhaps upon the first arrest of or suit against a Texan take that state to court for violations of a person's constitutional civil rights?

[StarfishSaver]

57. So you think that what they should do can't be done right now?

So why frame your reaction to what they're doing now as a criticism "not an actual legal, consequential, active counter to the Texas law"?

[Goodheart]

60. I think the case would be stronger if somebody has already been injured.

I'm not opposed to the announcement of this enforcement. I just don't think it does much.

[StarfishSaver]

64. What people are missing

Is that this announcement is not just about protecting women from the specific provisions of the new Texas law. DOJ surely knows - as we all should know - that this new law signaled that women in Texas are fair game and are in danger of violence and intimidation, not necessarily stemming from direct enforcement of the new law. The fact that the new law is supposedly aimed at people who help women seeking abortions and not the women themselves is beside the point The women ARE the target and the point is to prevent them from obtaining abortions and having autonomy over their own bodies. That now-state-sanctioned goal will be pursued through many means, not just civil lawsuits.

Texas has declared open season on women and Garland and DOJ are getting out in front and warning the state and its inhabitants that DOJ will fully enforce federal law to protect women from abortion-related violence. If he had not said anything and violence against women and abortion providers ensued, Garland would have been attacked for not getting in front of the issue.

The point of this announcement is to try to DETER and PREVENT violence, not just to prosecute it after it was committed - since every prosecution represents a harm already inflicted.

[Goodheart]

66. Gotcha. Good move. I think we need more.

[PortTack]

67. Kudos to you Starfish...always calm and knowledgeable. More of what we need right now

Just because our DOJ is not slamming his fist on the podium does not mean he’s not wielding a VERY big stick!!

[Elessar Zappa]

52. Awesome!

[UTUSN]

55. K&R

[BlueIdaho]

65. I'm sorry but I need to see some action.

Talk is cheap - it’s time for the DOJ under Garland to actually DO things to protect all our rights - starting with Choice and followed quickly by Voting rights.

[Politicub]

69. What form would this action take?

I’m listening.

[BlueIdaho]

81. How about ANYTHING

That looked like a bold progressive step back to the middle. Do you have any ideas or are you happy to read yet another strongly worded memo while Trumpers put the constitution in the shredder?

[Politicub]

103. There are lots of things happening. Be curious.

I’m not going to engage in a ‘turtles all the way down to “constitution in the shredder”’ discussion.

AG Garland is working within the law in an airtight manner. It may seem methodical, because that’s the way in which the justice department goes about its work.

There are so many legal fights on many fronts right now. AG Garland needs our support as the Democratic Party rises to meet them. Liberal grassroots organizations are strong, and they’re part of this fight, too. Marches and demonstrations are popping up, and a national Women’s March is in the works. There are lots of ways to get involved.

[StarfishSaver]

104. THANK you!!!

[StarfishSaver]

73. Exactly what action do you need to see DOJ taking right now?

Please be specific.

[BlueIdaho]

78. So you are perfectly happy with strongly worded memos?

I’m no expert but it seems we hired a guy who is suppose to do more than wag his finger at these Trumpers. I’m waiting.

[StarfishSaver]

82. Please share with us your ideas or what DOJ is supposed to do right now

that they're not doing.

Be precise. Explain exactly what that action would be and cite the specific legal authority under which that action would ensue.

[BlueIdaho]

85. Yeah, you said that already.

Answer my question - are you satisfied with strongly worded memos? If yes, we’re done here.

[StarfishSaver]

92. Strongly worded memos are not involved here, so your question is a ridiculous dodge

But your refusal to offer any alternative has answered my question.

[BlueIdaho]

94. Like I said, we're done here.

[Hekate]

71. Good for him. This is the start of Biden's "whole of government response," then. nt

[andym]

74. The Texas law was designed to put abortion clinics in TX out of business

and force women to either not get an abortion because there is no such procedure available or leave the state. Will the DOJ protect abortion clinics and doctors in TX from lawsuits? Will be interesting to see what the DOJ does.

[StarfishSaver]

80. If you read Garland's statement, you'll see that

this action isn't limited to the Texas law but a broader salvo across the bow at Texas.

[Jon King]

75. Its a bluff, the Repugs will never actually file any cases.

Nothing but a scare tactic. There will never be even one case filed. The first case filed will be blasted from all angles by progressive lawyers. Medical records protections, federal civil rights, cross suits for mental anguish, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

83. This is about more than the civil lawsuits

Garland is warning them about going after women in other ways, as well.

[Jon King]

86. Of course, but they have been doing that for decades.

Blocking clinics, harassing, etc.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

79. Merrick Garland just announced that the DOJ will protect women seeking abortions in Texas

Link to tweet

[Zeitghost]

87. Unless I missed something

All he's saying is that he will enforce laws already on the books. I appreciate the message, but he can't prevent enforcement of the TX law.

[StarfishSaver]

93. DOJ can only enforce law already on the books. They don't make laws

And they have the discretion to step up or scale back enforcement depending on need and resources. Garland has put Texans on notice that they're going to go full bore at them on this.

And DOJ never claimed it would "prevent enforcement of the TX law."

The responses in this thread are fascinating. On the one hand, people demand that DOJ DO something. And when they do something, some of those same people dismiss it.

It's clear that some folk just want to complain and really aren't interested in solutions.

[Zeitghost]

101. Precisely my point

Some seem to be taking this as the DOJ is going to step in and put a stop to this, they won't because they can't. And it's not their fault, it's the way the system works.

[Jon King]

89. Garland should also announce that DOJ will defend any case brought.

If they ever bring even one case, the DOJ must step forward and immediately file civil rights violations to protect the women. An abortion up until viability is the law of the land.

There needs to be a test case as soon as possible. Force their hand, force them to file a case.

[Zeitghost]

91. Which law would that be?

"An abortion up until viability is the law of the land."

The problem is that it's not at the federal level or in TX.

[Captain Zero]

90. I think it's a dare to sue HIM.

Obviously he would have a plan for that fool.

[Cha]

95. TY & AG Merrick Garland

[Politicub]

102. K&r

[Maru Kitteh]

99. This is the GOOD NEWS we need. nt

[spanone]

107. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼K&R👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[bucolic_frolic]

108. Concerned with deputizing the public to fleece people with financial punishment

This is just inhumane, un-American, mean-spirited. It's a frontier, vigilante mindset. If allowed to stand it could become a model for other issues that divide us into the oppressed, the hated, the goody-two shoes. It's a friendly form of Nazism in my view because they were all about legalized plunder as well.

[lagomorph777]

112. I'm not seeing the "friendly" part.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

109. Is he saying it will be criminal

To file a lawsuit? Is that a new thing in our system? Like has that happened before?

[StarfishSaver]

110. No, that's not what he's saying

He's saying that the Justice Department will crack down hard on anyone violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a crime to use violence or intimidation to prevent a woman from having an abortion. He didn't say that DOJ would prosecute anyone for bringing a civil suit under the new Texas law.

[Loki Liesmith]

111. Let's be real: this does very little.

[StarfishSaver]

113. Actually, it will do quite a lot.

But if you think it won't, what is your suggestion for action that WILL do a lot?

[Scrivener7]

116. What exactly is it that you think this will do?

[StarfishSaver]

117. There can be no doubt the new law will embolden vigilantes to take matters into their own hands

far beyond simply filing lawsuits. It is very likely that intimidation and violence against women and medical providers will ramp up as a direct result of the new law. It's also very likely that state and local authorities will go look the other way or wrist slap the perpetrators of these crimes.

Garland has put everyone on notice that DOJ will make it a top priority to prosecute anyone who uses violence or intimidation to interfere with women's ability to obtain abortions.

This is not a small thing.

[Scrivener7]

119. So nothing new. As many in this thread have pointed out.

[StarfishSaver]

121. It IS something new

Prosecutors have wide discretion of what to prosecute and must pick and choose what cases to step in on. Given the limited resources of the federal government, when DOJ announces it's making a priority to prosecute certain cases that haven't been a priority in the past, that's a BFD.

[Scrivener7]

124. New permission to enforce an existing law that does not address the Texas law.

[StarfishSaver]

128. No one is claiming it does.

It does, however, address the anticipated fallout of the law.