Texas Republicans ban women from using highways for abortion appointments
www.newsweek.com
Lubbock County, Texas, becomes the next county to pass legislation banning women from using their roads to seek abortions.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/6994755

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday’s meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a “Sanctuary County for the Unborn.”

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas’ existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

  • @ChonkyOwlbear
    12•1 year ago

    This is one of those things that feels like it should be unconstitutional but I can’t think of why.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      6•1 year ago

      It is. Freedom of movement literally dates back to Articles of Confederation even (and are essentially grandfathered into the Constitution)

      and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively.

      It’s been routinely held up by the SCOTUS as being inherent to the Constitution several times. In this instance, there’s also a strong argument for it to be a violation of the federal government’s reserved right to manage interstate commerce.