• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DevilsAdvocate said:
Probably not. The law allowing suit for aiding and abetting is for "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" That subchapter is Texas law and only applies to Texas. It would be equally problematic to sue a doctor residing in another state for performing such an abortion.

It is possible someone could try. Maybe sue a insurance company in Texas for paying for "prohibited" abortions in other states. I doubt it would stand.

I doubt anybody will try that. The law is carefully crafted to resist any interference by the courts and make as difficult as possible to challenge the law. Trying to sue for an out of state action would open the door to court scrutiny, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

OK, so the reason I ask is, what would be to stop Planned Parenthood (and other women's reproductive health organizations) terminating their registrations in Texas, and instead, registering their headquarters in New Mexico, then subcontracting out abortions for women in Texas, to cliincs in New Mexico.
 
smartcooky said:
OK, so the reason I ask is, what would be to stop Planned Parenthood (and other women's reproductive health organizations) terminating their registrations in Texas, and instead, registering their headquarters in New Mexico, then subcontracting out abortions for women in Texas, to cliincs in New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Transportation costs. Albuquerque Planned Parenthood is getting many Texan women already, there was a news story. But we're like a loooong ways from the major east Texas cities.
 
In New Mexico, Tesla has manage to skirt the New Mexico laws preventing car manufacturers from selling direct to the public; laws that are bought and paid for by the top car manufacturers, GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Tesla have done this by negotiating with the Nambé Pueblo Tribal Administration, and setting up their new showroom and service centre in a defunct casino on tribal lands. Since the Pueblo of Nambé is a sovereign, self-governing area, it lies completely outside of New Mexico's legislative jurisdiction; in effect, New Mexico laws do not apply there.

So this got me to thinking, what would stop Planned Parenthood (or other women's reproductive health organizations) negotiating with Native American tribes to set up something similar. The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas has about 10,200 acres in the Big Thicket of Deep East Texas. It is a fully functioning sovereign government with a full array of health and human services, including law enforcement and emergency services. Same applies to the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas on the south (125 acres). They too are Federally recognised, sovereign and self-governing so the fall outside the reach of the Texas legislature.

Alabama-Coushatta is within reasonable distance of Ft Wort, Dallas, Houston and Austin, and Kickpoo is close enough to serve San Antonio. There is another self-governing, sovereign Native American reservation area controlled by the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo near El Paso.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
In New Mexico, Tesla has manage to skirt the New Mexico laws preventing car manufacturers from selling direct to the public; laws that are bought and paid for by the top car manufacturers, GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Tesla have done this by negotiating with the Nambé Pueblo Tribal Administration, and setting up their new showroom and service centre in a defunct casino on tribal lands. Since the Pueblo of Nambé is a sovereign, self-governing area, it lies completely outside of New Mexico's legislative jurisdiction; in effect, New Mexico laws do not apply there.

So this got me to thinking, what would stop Planned Parenthood (or other women's reproductive health organizations) negotiating with Native American tribes to set up something similar. The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas has about 10,200 acres in the Big Thicket of Deep East Texas. It is a fully functioning sovereign government with a full array of health and human services, including law enforcement and emergency services. Same applies to the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas on the south (125 acres). They too are Federally recognised, sovereign and self-governing so the fall outside the reach of the Texas legislature.

Alabama-Coushatta is within reasonable distance of Ft Wort, Dallas, Houston and Austin, and Kickpoo is close enough to serve San Antonio. There is another self-governing, sovereign Native American reservation area controlled by the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo near El Paso.
Click to expand...
Tell this to Planned Parenthood.
 
It would be a great plan but the tribes will receive the same death threats, harassment, and public backlash that women's health clinics are\were getting. Do they want to take on that responsibility and attention?

Transportation would also be an issue as, I'm positive, some women that utilize the services won't have their own transportation. That would enable the people who want to sue to attempt to go after any public transport or friends of the women who provide them with transport.
 
As said there isn't some weird procedural "gotcha" trick that the Republicans are going to fall for.

Regardless how is "If you want an abortion, just leave the state?" a solution? That's exactly what the Republicans want, at least at this stage of things.
 
plague311 said:
It would be a great plan but the tribes will receive the same death threats, harassment, and public backlash that women's health clinics are\were getting. Do they want to take on that responsibility and attention?

Transportation would also be an issue as, I'm positive, some women that utilize the services won't have their own transportation. That would enable the people who want to sue to attempt to go after any public transport or friends of the women who provide them with transport.
Click to expand...

Trying to sue public transport is ridiculous. Bus drivers don't know why their passengers are going somewhere. Besides, a woman could borrow a friend or family member's car and drive herself without telling them where they're really going and why. At least openly. The car owner may infer that but if they're not actually told the reason why the car is being borrowed, no one can prove they knowingly helped. There are ways around this until the SC does the right thing and tells Abbott where he can shove that law.
 
JoeMorgue said:
As said there isn't some weird procedural "gotcha" trick that the Republicans are going to fall for.

Regardless how is "If you want an abortion, just leave the state?" a solution? That's exactly what the Republicans want, at least at this stage of things.
Click to expand...

And, right now it seems like they don't intend to try and apply their law to other states. But if this law is left to stand, they will likely get bolder. If I were to knowingly help a Texas resident get an abortion in New Mexico they could sue me in Texas court. I wouldn't appear and then I'd have a summary judgement against me. I can say with certainty that under our current governors administration they would absolutely not cooperate. But... if I cross state lines I could be facing all kinds of trouble.

And then, what if all the southern states follow Texas' lead. Someone in the deep south might need to travel 1000 miles to the nearest clinic.
 
JoeMorgue said:
As said there isn't some weird procedural "gotcha" trick that the Republicans are going to fall for.

Regardless how is "If you want an abortion, just leave the state?" a solution? That's exactly what the Republicans want, at least at this stage of things.
Click to expand...

lobosrul5 said:
And, right now it seems like they don't intend to try and apply their law to other states. But if this law is left to stand, they will likely get bolder. If I were to knowingly help a Texas resident get an abortion in New Mexico they could sue me in Texas court. I wouldn't appear and then I'd have a summary judgement against me. I can say with certainty that under our current governors administration they would absolutely not cooperate. But... if I cross state lines I could be facing all kinds of trouble.

And then, what if all the southern states follow Texas' lead. Someone in the deep south might need to travel 1000 miles to the nearest clinic.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They want to ban abortions for those who lack the resources to secure them safely but they still need the ability to secure one should their girlfriend/mistress/daughter have a need for one.
 
The Don said:
Exactly. They want to ban abortions for those who lack the resources to secure them safely but they still need the ability to secure one should their girlfriend/mistress/daughter have a need for one.
Click to expand...

And that's it in a nutshell. Wasn't there an old adage about keeping people poor (and therefore controllable) by denying access to birth control at some point in the past..? I have a vague recollection nudging my memory...
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
And that's it in a nutshell. Wasn't there an old adage about keeping people poor (and therefore controllable) by denying access to birth control at some point in the past..? I have a vague recollection nudging my memory...
Click to expand...

That theory always smacked of conspiracy theory quackery to me.

The simpler explanation is that the conservative right is simply opposed to the general concept of sexual liberation. Their world view is that sex should come with life altering consequences, especially when it occurs outside the bounds of marriage. A single mother struggling to survive in the world is the punishment for immoral behavior.

The whole campaign against sexual education, birth control, and abortion is a rejection of an effort to make sex less biologically risky. They view it as unjust that evil people can engage in wicked acts and not suffer unwanted consequences.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
That theory always smacked of conspiracy theory quackery to me.

The simpler explanation is that the conservative right is simply opposed to the general concept of sexual liberation. Their world view is that sex should come with life altering consequences, especially when it occurs outside the bounds of marriage. A single mother struggling to survive in the world is the punishment for immoral behavior.

The whole campaign against sexual education, birth control, and abortion is a rejection of an effort to make sex less biologically risky. They view it as unjust that evil people can engage in wicked acts and not suffer unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...


I wonder how much, if any of this, I’d a sort of “sour grapes” reaction? “I was raised not to do it and didn’t (or had to work hard to hide it when I did); it’s not fair that they can just do it in the open!”

Just a thought :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That theory always smacked of conspiracy theory quackery to me.

The simpler explanation is that the conservative right is simply opposed to the general concept of sexual liberation. Their world view is that sex should come with life altering consequences, especially when it occurs outside the bounds of marriage. A single mother struggling to survive in the world is the punishment for immoral behavior.

The whole campaign against sexual education, birth control, and abortion is a rejection of an effort to make sex less biologically risky. They view it as unjust that evil people can engage in wicked acts and not suffer unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...

This is a big part of it, a key detail is that they believe the punishment for having sex should only be suffered by women and girls. It's okay for men to screw around.
 
The Right bumbling Mr. Bean style into what amounts to amounts to a planned conspiracy almost makes both narratives work.
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
And that's it in a nutshell. Wasn't there an old adage about keeping people poor (and therefore controllable) by denying access to birth control at some point in the past..? I have a vague recollection nudging my memory...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about an adage, but... the reasons used to argue for allowing legal, accessible abortions certainly do include the distinctly positive economic effects, especially for those who are not in a good position to handle the burdens of either pregnancy or kids, and the empowering consequences of being in a better financial state and not having one's resources and focus taken up by dealing with a pregnancy or kids that one is not in a good position to handle. That makes opposing legal, accessible abortion a de facto opposition to such, but it's rare for the forced birthers to advance an obviously enraging "disempowering the masses and making them less free" as an argument for their position themselves.
 
for the Religious Right, the biggest attraction is the provision to hunt down sinners and get paid for it: spying on your fellow Church members to see who might be gay or might have an abortion is part of the foundation of these groups;
and at the prospect of being able to Faith Patrol the entire State, more than a few of them would have spontaneously committed the Sin of Onan.

Unless the Supreme Court puts its foot down against these ideological witch hunts, this kind of Bounty Hunting for Christ is going to become the norm in Red States.
 
People are people.

As Texas bans abortion a slew of retired doctors open secret little clinics everywhere and young ladies in trouble "go visit thier aunts" in neighboring states before they start showing a belly.

We have seen all this before. I do wonder which Texas political figure will be the first sending a young female assistant of some sort on vacation for a few weeks.

Because we all know they wouldn't be doing immoral things after making that law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom