Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
//Best guess//

It's the nuisance lawsuit principle. It doesn't matter (as much) how many people actually get fined, it matters that they are constantly being harassed on a legal level.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
so tell me what it was ruling on; the Texas Ban is a a "heartbeat" bill, i.e. it defines a human as something that exists incredibly early in embryonic development.
Click to expand...

Whether the applicants for a stay or injunction satisfied the requirements for those procedures. Those are different from a ruling on the constitutionality of the law itself.
 
ZiprHead said:
I heard something this morning I found disturbing about this law.

A father could impregnate his daughter and if she gets an abortion he can sue her and make bank.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point.

In fact, I suppose that means that by this Texas law, that any forced pregnancy could result in money damages being awarded to the rapist if the woman who was raped got an abortion as a result of the rape.

So in other words, the good people of Texas have enacted a law which can enable a man to rape a woman physically and later on enable that same man to rape his victim again financially.

Wow!
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Not quite. As far as I can tell, the Texas bounty system is entirely novel. With ADA complaints, the person suing has to claim they were impacted by a non-compliance in some way. The ADA trolls were ostensibly disabled people who encountered non-compliant buildings or whatever.
Click to expand...


A better example would be California's Proposition 65, with private parties able to file lawsuits against companies that don't have adequate carcinogen labeling, as long as they notify the Attorney General.

Enforcement is carried out through civil lawsuits brought by the California Attorney General, or by a district attorney or city attorney of a city with a population exceeding 750,000. Private parties acting in the public interest can also bring Proposition 65 lawsuits, but only if they have provided at least 60 days notice of the alleged violation to the business, as well as to the Attorney General and the appropriate district attorney and city attorney, and the Attorney General, district attorney or city attorney has not taken action. The notice must provide adequate information about the alleged violation and comply with the requirements specified in the regulations.
Click to expand...
 
An observation, anyone filing these lawsuits would be doxxing themselves in a very public way.

I see no reason why the names and addresses of these people trying to sue women for getting basic health care shouldn't be very publicly announced. If something unfortunate were to happen to them, well, that would just be too bad.
 
The return fire is for the New England States, New York, California and Oregon to pass these private bounty laws to restrict gun rights and ownership. Force a ruling on the state's monopoly on enforcing the law.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
An observation, anyone filing these lawsuits would be doxxing themselves in a very public way.

I see no reason why the names and addresses of these people trying to sue women for getting basic health care shouldn't be very publicly announced. If something unfortunate were to happen to them, well, that would just be too bad.
Click to expand...

Anonymous tip lines are already a thing, sadly. I can't imagine the concept won't be applied to this if it hasn't been already, as odious as it is.
 
Craig4 said:
The return fire is for the New England States, New York, California and Oregon to pass these private bounty laws to restrict gun rights and ownership. Force a ruling on the state's monopoly on enforcing the law.
Click to expand...

Not seeing the wisdom of unilaterally disarming in response to increasingly radical, authoritarian right wing political movements.

Today is a really good day for anyone who isn't a CHUD to become competent in firearms.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Anonymous tip lines are already a thing, sadly. I can't imagine the concept won't be applied to this if it hasn't been already, as odious as it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you want that sweet, sweet payola, you gotta go on the record.

My reading of the law is that the state isn't litigating this, it's private actors. Someone who isn't the state has to be the face of these claims.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yeah, but if you want that sweet, sweet payola, you gotta go on the record.
Click to expand...

Not here in America's Wang you don't. You can submit a tip on a crime, stay anonymous, and still get paid.

It's not a perfect 1:1 same thing, but I won't be surprised if the Republicans in Texas make it work somehow. Anything to keep those whores from spreading their legs.

But like I said earlier I think keeping women in a constant state of quasi-legal harassment is much more important than any money changing hands.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Anonymous tip lines are already a thing, sadly. I can't imagine the concept won't be applied to this if it hasn't been already, as odious as it is.
Click to expand...

This is like a system protected by the nihilists you hate. The law was clearly crafted as a workaround the law, which means people like me will line up to defend it even if they are putatively pro-choice.

Meanwhile, you will be pointing out that an effort to violate the spirit of the law is itself a judgement against it, not a feature.


ETA: it is the creationist in school on meth.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Not here in America's Wang you don't. You can submit a tip on a crime, stay anonymous, and still get paid.

It's not a perfect 1:1 same thing, but I won't be surprised if the Republicans in Texas make it work somehow. Anything to keep those whores from spreading their legs.

But like I said earlier I think keeping women in a constant state of quasi-legal harassment is much more important than any money changing hands.
Click to expand...

The Texas bill:

Texas’ version is unique in that it prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban. Instead, it allows anyone — even someone outside Texas — to sue an abortion provider or anyone else who may have helped someone get an abortion after the limit, and seek financial damages of up to $10,000 per defendant.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/texas-health-abortion-government-and-politics-ba02cd7c3f02b1eb5c87094257ee4db2

I suppose some anti-abortion org could set up a tip line and be the public face of litigation, but the state isn't litigating these, so calling up your local police department isn't going to hack it.
 
And again I think that all ties back into my view that the harassments itself is the point, not the actual money.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And again I think that all ties back into my view that the harassments itself is the point, not the actual money.
Click to expand...

My point is that someone, somewhere is going to have to go on the record at some point for the harassment to even occur. Whether that's some ghoulish anti-abortion nonprofit or Joe Blow trying to get paid, someone's name is going to be on the dotted line. It's not going to be Texas v some poor lady.

The people doing this have names and addresses, and it will be publicly available.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
My point is that someone, somewhere is going to have to go on the record at some point for the harassment to even occur. Whether that's some ghoulish anti-abortion nonprofit or Joe Blow trying to get paid, someone's name is going to be on the dotted line. It's not going to be Texas v some poor lady.

The people doing this have names and addresses, and it will be publicly available.
Click to expand...

I have zero doubt that Texas will, somehow, manage to protect that data while leaving the women and abortion providers in the wind.

I hope I'm wrong.
 
And beyond that I don't think we're going to win a "harassment You-Got-Served off" with the Right.

The Right is basically a troll army at this point. This isn't just playing their game it's playing their game under their rules on their field with their refs. You can't piss a tide of piss back into an ocean of piss.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And beyond that I don't think we're going to win a "harassments off" with the Right.

The Right is basically a troll army at this point. You can't piss a tide of piss back into an ocean of piss.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I think the liberals could stand to get a lot more belligerent.

The gloves have been off for a long time now, at least for the right wingers. One side can't unilaterally declare peace.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Not seeing the wisdom of unilaterally disarming in response to increasingly radical, authoritarian right wing political movements.

Today is a really good day for anyone who isn't a CHUD to become competent in firearms.
Click to expand...

It's not about guns really. It's about shutting down citizen use of civil suits as an end run around the constitution.
 
Craig4 said:
It's not about guns really. It's about shutting down citizen use of civil suits as an end run around the constitution.
Click to expand...

Disarming people in California is going to do ****-all to impact the political environment in Texas.

In the past, a somewhat effective response to insane right wing state law was for larger businesses and other groups to boycott the state. Ideally any response would actually impact the people responsible, not some unrelated CHUD living in Oregon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom