Texas: What can happen to restrictive laws passed in the US – US – International

The fame of Texas as one of the most conservative states in United States it has circled the globe. To give a couple of examples it is by far the one that most people have executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, it is where most weapons per capita exist and one of the states in which the preferred slogan of much of the population is “the one who makes the pay.”

(In context: The controversial law restricting voting in Texas)

With the entry into force of two controversial laws – one that restricts reproductive rights and another that limits the right to vote of minorities such as Hispanics and African Americans and low-income people – there is no doubt that Texas will underpin this tradition. almost in stone.

So much so, that some see in the steps taken by this southern state a kind of “laboratory” where it is experimented with the most extreme versions of the republican ideology. Something similar to what is happening in California with the progressive movement, but in the opposite direction.

Both laws were recently passed by the state Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, and signed by the governor. Greg Abbott, which has been emerging as one of the most radical voices in the entire country.

The first law, known as SB8, Prohibits abortion after six weeks of gestation and is already the strictest in the country since the procedure was legalized in the US. UU. In 1973 after the decision taken by the Supreme Court Justice (CSJ) in the famous case Roe Vs. Wade.

The second, or SB1, Introduces a number of changes to the state’s electoral system that have been sold as “strategies to counter fraud,” but which in practice will make it difficult for minorities to vote, which in this state often favors the party. Democrat.

While both laws have been considered by a large number of experts to be unconstitutional, they have so far survived the examination of a SCJ that is now controlled by a clear Conservative majority (six judges of this trend against three of liberal court).

(You may be interested in: US will require vaccination of applicants for permanent residence)

Although other country states have passed similar measures, those in Texas are the first to be implemented and will likely serve as an example and precedent for the near future.

Especially in the case of the SB8 which is seen by the defenders of the abortion as a Trojan horse in order to nullify the constitutional protection granted and which has been one of the flags of the Republican party for the past five decades.
The Roe v. Wade established that women had the right to terminate their pregnancies, but with certain limitations divided into three stages.

During the first quarter, that is, until week 13 or 14, states could not impose any limits. In the second, which runs until week 24 or 26, some restrictions based on health effects would be possible, while from the third the states could ban all types of abortion as long as it is not at risk. the life of the mother.

Since then states, especially the more conservative ones, have legislated around these limits. Thanks to that, today in the US. UU. The right to abortion is still in force and although its application varies from state to state, none had been able to penetrate Roe Vs. Wade to abortion in the first trimester. Until he came to Texas.

(Read here: U.S. Department of Justice. Texas lawsuit for abortion law)

While eight states have passed laws banning abortion after six weeks, its implementation had been hampered by lawsuits before the courts.
“Putting a limit before the third trimester is not only unconstitutional but very complicated to apply. At six weeks, a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant.

In other words if you don’t get the period you have to run for a test and then you have a few days to decide what you want to do and raise the funds to pay for an abortion, which is not cheap. In fact, more than 90 percent of women who decide to terminate a pregnancy do so after eight weeks. Texas law, in practice, what it does is ban almost all abortions in the state, ”says Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that advocates for abortion.

SB8 law, unlike others, does not even grant exceptions for cases of incest or rape and only allows interruption when there is a risk to the mother’s life, but under strict criteria.

Faced with this, lawmakers in Texas found a way – hitherto unexplored – to evade constitutional control. In writing the law they included a provision prohibiting the measure from being implemented by public officials and left this exercise to private citizens.

(Also: The Three Keys to Governor Newsom’s Triumph in California)

In other words, it is the latter who will be able to ask a person or institution to facilitate an abortion and even be promised a “reward” of $ 10,000 if they win the lawsuit, which makes them a kind of vigilante on salary. the law.

However, since it is not civil servants but citizens who were empowered to exercise the law, the Court, in a split vote of five to four (Conservative John Roberts joined the Liberals in opposition), choose not to intervene at the moment.

The spectrum of the demands is, in addition, extremely controversial because it covers practically a anyone who helps in an abortion: From the driver who takes her to the scene to relatives of the pregnant woman and doctors.

And its effect has already been enormous. Many clinics have chosen to close their doors for fear of a lawsuit and a large number of women – those who can – are leaving the state to perform the procedure in another where there are still no such restrictions. But experts believe the example of Texas will be used as a roadmap.

The Department of Justice sued the law for considering it unconstitutional and the administration of Joe Biden promising to uphold women’s rights, even by sending federal agents to guard centers that perform such procedures. But as long as the Court does not intervene, his hands are tied. The only effective way for the government to counter this trend is for Congress to pass a law that clarifies the scope of Roe vs. Wade and strengthen your criteria.

At the moment, the Democratic party does not have enough majorities to achieve this.
Something similar happens with the SB1 law. Since Republicans lost the presidential and legislative elections last year, more than 20 states in power have passed measures to tighten voting mechanisms.

The irony is that his motivation has been the alleged fraud that was committed in these elections when in reality not a single case of wrongdoing and all the high demands for the campaign have been documented. Donald Trump they were rejected by liberal and conservative cuts.

Among all of them, the one in Texas stands out for its limitations in the vote by eliminating, among other things, 24-hour voting days and cart voting through windows that were established in some counties to facilitate access to the polls. It also raises the standards of identification to be able to vote and restricts postal voting, a practice very common in the rest of the country and which became more popular because of the risks posed by the covid-19 pandemic.

In addition, it makes it a criminal offense to send cards to homes if people have not previously requested them and requires the signing of documents and other requirements to anyone who facilitates the drafting or delivery of forms to people in condition of disability.

On the other hand, the law in turn expands the rights of the so-called survey observers (Private citizens who can witness the vote) who will now have unlimited access to the polling stations and will even be able to witness the counting of votes and the registration of the same in external memories and computers.

While the law applies to everyone, it is clear that they affect minorities more, people with less electoral education or who require extra hours to vote given their long working hours.

“The principle of the electoral system is supposed to be to make it easier for people to vote. This law does just the opposite because it largely establishes new obstacles,” said Marc Elias, a lawyer for several organizations that have sued. new law.
According to the analyst, what is behind this measure – and the others advancing in the country – is an effort to suppress a vote that does not favor them and that is jeopardizing Republican power in the state.

While Texas has been favoring Republican candidates for more than four decades, the migration of Hispanics and the arrival of college students in large urban centers in the state changed the trajectory. It is estimated that over the next decade Democrats could reach a majority.

And the same goes for others such as Georgia and Arizona – where they already won in the last election cycle – and North Carolina, three states that were clearly Republican, but where trends have been changing and with them, the path to power for to this party.

Applauded by some and criticized by others, these Texas laws could have consequences on other fronts. Several country companies have already announced that they plan to cancel their contracts with the state and there is concern that the tourism industry will be affected or that population expansion will stop. Many, experts say, will think twice before relocating to an area of ​​the country that is turning so markedly to the right.

Something that while it would affect the finances of the state, perhaps to consolidate the control of a state the weight is enormous in electoral terms and that today opens like a new border for the republican ideology.

SERGIO GÓMEZ MASERI
EL TEMPS correspondent
WASHINGTON
On Twitter: @ sergom68

You may be interested

– Colombia passes the first drug test in the Joe Biden era
– Covid: since when EE. UU. Will you start getting the booster shot?