Texas bans abortion.

[Norman Alexander]

The law still does not make legal sense even in Texas terms. It's not a crime to abort. The person collecting 10 000 has no personal standing in the case. It's not a fine as the state is not involved, and you could not fine it anyway as a minor offense would still need to be illegal, such as smoking pot in many states. A civil suit needs to have a judge determine if the parties have any claim or standing. Clearly, they do not.

Worse than that. Let's say an abortion provider does an abortion for a woman at her request, and some vigilante sues the abortion provider under this law. The same law specifically states that the woman who requested and received the abortion has no standing in this case. She cannot intercede on the provider's behalf. So, in short, the law is clearly aimed at shutting down abortion providers by rogue posse intimidation rather than trying to prevent women getting abortions.

 

[Norman Alexander]

They did not fail in terms of writing the law. The law gives a specific definition of the meaning of "fetal heartbeat" to be used within the context of the law. It is not unusual for laws to have definitions for words and phrases that are different from general usage. In fact, that's really the reason for putting the definitions in the law in the first place. It appears to me that this law is very good in terms of writing comprehension. I think some people have been working on this for a very long time.

I totally agree the law is a legal quagmire, with the sole aim of getting something in front of the sympathetic Supremes while the going is good.

However I have highlighted the medical problem. The law can make these definitions. But reality must surely intervene. Medical evidence from many competent sources says the six-week heartbeat test is bollox. Human embryos do not develop like that.

The point here is the text of a law can define "white" as "black" and "up" is "down" for the purposes of the content that follows. But that is fantasy. To bring a case under that law before any competent bench should have it tossed out with prejudice. At some point, a jurist will have to say that the definitions in the law are not in fact true at all. They are demonstrably false. And as such, the law that follows based on those untrue definitions cannot be enforced.

The contrary is that any law can have any definition of any thing be whatever the framers would like it to be. A law could be made, for example, that the Harry Potter world is the true world, and the whole state and all its citizens will now have to abide by the J.K. Rowling Laws of Wizardry as specified by the Ministry of The Dark Arts (or whatever I'm not a Potterist! ). Utter nonsense, but enforceable by gun-toting vigilantes (or Death Eaters in this case).

 

[acbytesla]

I am thinking that a few abortion clinics could be setup in the gulf of Mexico. All pre-care can be done on land.

 

[JoeMorgue]

However I have highlighted the medical problem. The law can make these definitions. But reality must surely intervene. Medical evidence from many competent sources says the six-week heartbeat test is bollox. Human embryos do not develop like that.

When? How?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I totally agree the law is a legal quagmire, with the sole aim of getting something in front of the sympathetic Supremes while the going is good.

However I have highlighted the medical problem. The law can make these definitions. But reality must surely intervene. Medical evidence from many competent sources says the six-week heartbeat test is bollox. Human embryos do not develop like that.

The point here is the text of a law can define "white" as "black" and "up" is "down" for the purposes of the content that follows. But that is fantasy. To bring a case under that law before any competent bench should have it tossed out with prejudice. At some point, a jurist will have to say that the definitions in the law are not in fact true at all. They are demonstrably false. And as such, the law that follows based on those untrue definitions cannot be enforced.

The contrary is that any law can have any definition of any thing be whatever the framers would like it to be. A law could be made, for example, that the Harry Potter world is the true world, and the whole state and all its citizens will now have to abide by the J.K. Rowling Laws of Wizardry as specified by the Ministry of The Dark Arts (or whatever I'm not a Potterist! ). Utter nonsense, but enforceable by gun-toting vigilantes (or Death Eaters in this case).

The Harry Potter thing seems like a non-sequitur in terms of definitions within laws.

The law doesn't say anything about a "six-week heartbeat test". The law requires a test for "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac." It calls that a "fetal heartbeat" but what term is used to represent that phrase is irrelevant. The law could say that doctors must test for mnfnwkjufgsw and not provide an abortion if there is mnfnwkjufgsw and that mnfnwkjufgsw is defined as "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac."

A jurist cannot say that a definition established in a law is not in fact true because it is a definition. Laws don't define all words and phrases used in the law. A common reason for defining a word or phrase is because it is used to mean something other than the general meaning. A "participant" in a law may be very different from what people would generally consider to be a participant.

The law could say that "orange juice" is defined as "cardiac activity" and that a doctor must test for orange juice and is prohibited from performing an abortion if there is orange juice. The definition of orange juice is not untrue. It is a definition. That fact that it has nothing to do at all with the general meaning of "orange juice" is irrelevant to the law. Also, it does not change the general meaning. It is just a meaning used within that law.

While there are no legal problems there, that could have other problems in misleading the public into thinking this is a law about orange juice. It could also have a problem when the law justifies overriding constitutional rights because orange juice helps agricultural farmer and is a delicious breakfast drink. When the definition of "orange juice" in the law means "cardiac activity" then that justification is not true (and in this hypothetical is absurd).

 

[zorro99]

Justice Department to protect women seeking an abortion in Texas
Hamza Shaban7:43 p.m. EDT

The Justice Department is exploring “all options” to challenge Texas’s restrictive abortion law, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday, as he vowed to provide support to abortion clinics that are “under attack” in the state and to protect those seeking and providing reproductive health services.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cdc7ba-0f36-11ec-882f-2dd15a067dc4_story.html

 

[zorro99]

A website for ‘whistleblowers’ to expose Texas abortion providers was taken down — again

By Meryl Kornfield
Today at 6:26 p.m

After a Texas law restricting abortion went into effect Wednesday, an antiabortion organization had hoped to out those involved in unlawful procedures by anonymous tips online.

But Texas Right to Life’s website, ProLifeWhistleblower.com, which invited people to inform on those obtaining or facilitating abortions, has not stayed up for long, as website registration providers have said the online form to submit “whistleblower” reports violates their rules. On Monday, the organization confirmed that the website redirects to its main page as it seeks to find a new digital home for the form.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/06/texas-abortion-ban-website/

 

[Norman Alexander]

The Harry Potter thing seems like a non-sequitur in terms of definitions within laws.

The law doesn't say anything about a "six-week heartbeat test". The law requires a test for "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac." It calls that a "fetal heartbeat" but what term is used to represent that phrase is irrelevant. The law could say that doctors must test for mnfnwkjufgsw and not provide an abortion if there is mnfnwkjufgsw and that mnfnwkjufgsw is defined as "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac."

A jurist cannot say that a definition established in a law is not in fact true because it is a definition. Laws don't define all words and phrases used in the law. A common reason for defining a word or phrase is because it is used to mean something other than the general meaning. A "participant" in a law may be very different from what people would generally consider to be a participant.

The law could say that "orange juice" is defined as "cardiac activity" and that a doctor must test for orange juice and is prohibited from performing an abortion if there is orange juice. The definition of orange juice is not untrue. It is a definition. That fact that it has nothing to do at all with the general meaning of "orange juice" is irrelevant to the law. Also, it does not change the general meaning. It is just a meaning used within that law.

While there are no legal problems there, that could have other problems in misleading the public into thinking this is a law about orange juice. It could also have a problem when the law justifies overriding constitutional rights because orange juice helps agricultural farmer and is a delicious breakfast drink. When the definition of "orange juice" in the law means "cardiac activity" then that justification is not true (and in this hypothetical is absurd).

I think we are in violent agreement. The highlighted is probably a great summary for the law's medical pronouncements generally. They can call it whatever they like. Reality says otherwise.

 

[smartcooky]

The following is an entry I found in a file of great quotes I have, which I use in posts from time to time. I cannot remember where I heard it, or read it, or who said it, but I thought it was very applicable to the subject of this Texas abortion law.

ON ANTI-ABORTION POLITICIANS
Cruelty is the plan - cruelty and control over women. You can tell this is true by the number of "pro-lifers" that are also "anti-birth control".

• The more pregnant women who are forced to term against their will, the easier it is to inflict economic hardship on them.

• The more women who are forced into economic dependence, the fewer who will find a way to escape an abuser.

• The more women in poverty, the more control and domination there is over them.

• The more raped women who are denied the right to terminate, the more they will be inflicted with trauma and narrowed options, and the more they will themselves be collateral desperate dependants.

Anti-choice is the hard mechanics of misogyny.
Cruelty is the mathematics of control.​

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am thinking that a few abortion clinics could be setup in the gulf of Mexico. All pre-care can be done on land.

Make it like the gambling day cruises we have here in Florida.

Also, less flippantly, there are 3 Federally recognized Native American reservations in Texas.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Question why not set up abortion Clinics as Churches, since Abortion was first designed by God?
If Kangaroos and other animals do it naturally, then God must have deemed it ok.
You can't believe in Intelligent design Texas with out believing God is the inventor of Aborting a Fetus, because animals do it all the time.
Texas can't Regulate an act of Worship, and technically since it's not Murder by the Constitution it can't be stopped.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We aren't going to "out legal loophole" the Right anymore than we are going to win a "Harassments-Off" battle with them.

They have no morals or intellectual standards so in a post fact world we are fighting with a severe handicap.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We aren't going to "out legal loophole" the Right anymore than we are going to win a "Harassments-Off" battle with them.

They have no morals or intellectual standards so in a post fact world we are fighting with a severe handicap.

I tend to agree. This smacks more of the Satanic Temple trying to elevate their name onto the hot topic than any kind of successful line of attack.

I disagree that harassment is necessarily a failed strategy. The state law farms out the responsibility of bringing these suits to non-government actors, and it seems to me that these types can be vulnerable to social backlash.

Seems like the exact kind of target "cancel culture" might be partially effective on combatting.

One snitch website is reportedly having problems because they can't find a reputable web host willing to take them on.

A website for ‘whistleblowers’ to expose Texas abortion providers was taken down — again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/06/texas-abortion-ban-website/

I don't see why it shouldn't be open season on any individual or group that tries to take advantage of this new law, and while this doesn't promise to be totally effective, sustained social pressure could have a significant impact.

One CEO has already resigned for publicly supporting the law.

The CEO of TripWire, an American video game company, stepped down Monday following comments he made about Texas's controversial abortion law that passed last week.

Company leader John Gibson tweeted Saturday that he was "proud" of the Supreme Court for upholding the "fetal heartbeat" bill.

"Proud of #USSupremeCourt affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat," Gibson wrote on Twitter. "As an entertainer I don’t get political often. Yet with so many vocal peers on the other side of this issue, I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/571016-tech-company-ceo-steps-down-after-comments-on-texas-abortion-law

Making it costly for anyone but die-hard ideologues to support this ghoulish law seems like a viable plan.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Their new host is the same Crimea-based shell corporation sponsoring other far-right extremist agitprop. Go ahead and say mean things about Putin on Twitter, he won't mind.

 

[Segnosaur]

One CEO has already resigned for publicly supporting the law.
..
Making it costly for anyone but die-hard ideologues to support this ghoulish law seems like a viable plan.

That might work (and I certainly hope they try it).

Unfortunately, it allows right-wing politicians to complain about "cancel culture", and since your average Republican voter isn't very smart, they won't be able to make the connection "The economy now sucks... maybe its because people don't want to have anything to do with right-wing lunatics"

We already saw hints of that in the case of Georgia (where their proposed anti-abortion law resulted in several movie/TV productions threatening to leave Georgia in response). Unfortunately it didn't stop Texas republicans from seeing a similar risk.

 

[lobosrul5]

The law still does not make legal sense even in Texas terms. It's not a crime to abort. The person collecting 10 000 has no personal standing in the case. It's not a fine as the state is not involved, and you could not fine it anyway as a minor offense would still need to be illegal, such as smoking pot in many states. A civil suit needs to have a judge determine if the parties have any claim or standing. Clearly, they do not.

The can of worms this law opens is a massive smelly pile of festering rotting ****. It will allow a state to circumvent any federal law or constitutional right. The concept of a private citizen suing another without any sort of standing or tort against them is just not found in the English Common Law system that I can tell. I THINK the Supreme Court, even with its right-wing majority, will see this and rule against it eventually. Congress could also pass a law banning non-tort civil prosecution but you know that would require them doing ******* anything useful.

Waiting for a blue state to do something like well we aren't going to MAKE anyone get a COVID vaccine but your neighbor can sue you for $10,000 if they want to.

 

[plague311]

Waiting for a blue state to do something like well we aren't going to MAKE anyone get a COVID vaccine but your neighbor can sue you for $10,000 if they want to.

I hope they do.

Listening to the Left, Right & Center podcast, the "rightie" on the show claimed that the Left has been doing the same thing already. In that certain states allow gun manufacturers to be sued in relation to shooting deaths. It was quickly pointed out that in those cases the people bringing the lawsuit have suffered damage. She retorted with, "Yeah, but babies in a womb can't hire lawyers."

It was a pretty good listen if anyone gets bored.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That might work (and I certainly hope they try it).

Unfortunately, it allows right-wing politicians to complain about "cancel culture", and since your average Republican voter isn't very smart, they won't be able to make the connection "The economy now sucks... maybe its because people don't want to have anything to do with right-wing lunatics"

We already saw hints of that in the case of Georgia (where their proposed anti-abortion law resulted in several movie/TV productions threatening to leave Georgia in response). Unfortunately it didn't stop Texas republicans from seeing a similar risk.

The right wing outrage meter is permanently pegged out at "frothy-mouthed mob", so there's really not much point is speculating on what might or might not set them off.

 

[plague311]

The right wing outrage meter is permanently pegged out at "frothy-mouthed mob", so there's really not much point is speculating on what might or might not set them off.

Absolutely true.

I can say this though, Right, Left & Center does a great job at being an intelligent debate. No one gets away with making stuff up or throwing out wild claims. Josh Barro, the host of both LRC and All the Presidents' Lawyers, does a really good job at calling out nonsense. I wasn't a huge fan at first, but their rotating board of guests, and civil debate really appealed to me.

I highly recommend it to anyone looking for an easy to listen to show that provides context around current events. It comes out on Fridays I think.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Absolutely true.

I can say this though, Right, Left & Center does a great job at being an intelligent debate. No one gets away with making stuff up or throwing out wild claims. Josh Barro, the host of both LRC and All the Presidents' Lawyers, does a really good job at calling out nonsense. I wasn't a huge fan at first, but their rotating board of guests, and civil debate really appealed to me.

I highly recommend it to anyone looking for an easy to listen to show that provides context around current events. It comes out on Fridays I think.

I enjoy the show too, but it's hard to imagine it has much political or cultural relevancy. The fact that some centrist, a somewhat progressive, and some never-Trump conservative can discuss things in a civil, informative way has little to do with the political reality.

The fact that all the "right" voices are basically Never Trump pundits who have long been made irrelevant by the MAGA cult proves this. They could have a real MAGA type on, but then the show would devolve to unintelligible screeching. The right wing in this country is a movement that has abandoned all pretexts of respecting truth or intellectual honesty, so there's really not much point in good-faith debate.

Like I said, it's a show I enjoy, but it's a bit of fantasy to think that such discourse could actually be relevant to our current political moment.