Texas Abortion Law

 I live in Texas, and in its last session our native criminal class outdid itself in passing the abominable abortion law that went into effect this month. The legislators did not make abortion a crime subject to prosecution by officials, probably because they knew courts would not allow a law of that sort to be enforced. Instead they came up with the gimmick of making performing an abortion or helping a woman to get an abortion after about the sixth week of pregnancy a civil violation that anyone in the state can sue over and collect up to ten thousand dollars plus a cut for his lawyers. The persons doing the suing do not have to claim to have suffered any harm or even to have any connection at all to the woman or those they are suing. The scheme was that as long as it lasted this would be as effective as an ordinary prohibition but would be harder and take longer to stop in courts, because  there would have to be civil suits under it to review before anything definite could happen.  

People should oppose the law and its gimmick irrespective of their opinions on abortion. If the gimmick is permitted as a tactic, a legislature could at least temporarily get rid of almost anything  its members disapproved of  that would be impossible to ban directly  (rude political speech, private purchase of firearms, homosexual marriage, or home schooling, for   example)   by making anyone connected with the disliked activity subject to an unlimited number of lawsuits.

The five members of the supreme court who refused to block this thing for what they said were purely technical and procedural reasons should consider its substance, see the gimmick as the attack on the general constitutional protection of people’s rights that it is, and find a way to stop its present and possible future use  as soon as possible. Liberal, libertarian, and conservative anti-abortion people who have supported this law should think twice. Libertarians among them should be ashamed.

Voting on Trump's "Emergency"

The Democrats in the house and senate plan to vote on cancelling Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to construct part of a wall between the US and Mexico  without legislation allowing and funding it. Republicans who care about the constitution, the separation of powers, and limited government should vote with them. The issue is clear enough that it will be reasonable to wonder whether the Republicans who vote with the president really care about these things or only talk about them to gull voters who do care.  Trump’s opponents are right on this issue, and he is wrong. He proposed legislation to build his wall, and the congress failed to appropriate money for it. That should have been the end of it. Whether he was right or wrong in wanting the money is irrelevant. 

 However rejecting this “emergency”  is not enough. Congress should  repeal the laws giving presidents any general power to declare something  to be an emergency and then to act pretty much as they like to respond to it. Legislators could then pass new laws giving presidents authority to respond to specific categories of threats such as actual or imminent attacks on the United States, major epidemics, and so on. 

Those in congress who rightly oppose Trump on this should admit that the congress  opened the door for it and then clean things up. For as things stand now, Trump probably had formal legal authority for what he did even though it went beyond the  funny business on emergencies from other presidents.  

A Question for Conservatives

Throughout history the practice of torturing captives has been commonplace in societies ranging from primitive tribes to higher civilizations. Under the influence of liberal and enlightenment ideas, torture was banned in much of European civilization during  the period  from the mid-1600’s to the early 1800’s, and its continued use in  the Middle East, east Asia, and perhaps Russia was seen as evidence of a residual barbarism in those societies.   By the beginning years of the 20^th Century the article on torture in the Encyclopedia Britannica was able to say that “the whole subject is now one of only historical interest as far as Europe is concerned “.  Of course the later rise of fascism and communism in that century proved the author wrong as European civilization experienced  a terrible reversion to barbarism.  

Torture was never legal in the United States, but last week Americans were reminded by a report from the US Senate that people in their government have resorted to torture in interrogating Muslim  prisoners suspected of being terrorists. I agree with those who oppose torture on ethical grounds and believe its use to be barbaric and to have no place in a free and civilized society.  

A number of conservatives have defended the practice.  I have a question for them. Many of them claim to revere the constitution. The constitution explicitly bans both inflicting cruel and unusual punishments and forcing a person to give criminal testimony against himself.  Ethical questions aside, how can self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives defend its use  it the light of that alone?