Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander
I'm seeing a lot of young men and women suddenly taking extended vacations out of Texas in the near future.
Click to expand...
Aridas said:
Only those with the wealth available to do so, of course.
Click to expand...

If a back alley entrance door and a "doctor" with a metal coat hanger were good enough for our poor grandmothers, who are we to complain?
 
Stacyhs said:
If a back alley entrance door and a "doctor" with a metal coat hanger were good enough for our poor grandmothers, who are we to complain?
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the usage of some slightly special teas that became rather dangerous if too much was imbibed as one of the alternatives to that.
 
Result of the Bill:
Number of abortions will go up
Complications from abortions will go up
Courts will get overwhelmed with vigilante lawsuits
People who wanted to help those in need will be sent to jail
 
I think there needs to be a fund to hire private investigators and internet researchers (like those researching the enemy force on January 6th) to go after anyone who brings a suit under this law. You could suppress the use of these lawsuits if people knew your life was going to be picked apart. Abuse the hell out of discovery and depositions in these lawsuits. Tear them apart in public. Affairs, gay on the down low, addiction issues all coming to the light of day. Don't attack the law, attack the people bringing the suits. Make their lives hell.
 
Craig4 said:
I think there needs to be a fund to hire private investigators and internet researchers (like those researching the enemy force on January 6th) to go after anyone who brings a suit under this law. You could suppress the use of these lawsuits if people knew your life was going to be picked apart. Abuse the hell out of discovery and depositions in these lawsuits. Tear them apart in public. Affairs, gay on the down low, addiction issues all coming to the light of day. Don't attack the law, attack the people bringing the suits. Make their lives hell.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Stacyhs said:
What do you suggest they do exactly? And by that, I mean an actual action, not some vague "they need to do something".
Click to expand...

Expand the Supreme Court. Immediately. Get every Democrat onboard. Bribe Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema. Put in four extra judges.
 
uke2se said:
Expand the Supreme Court. Immediately. Get every Democrat onboard. Bribe Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema. Put in four extra judges.
Click to expand...

Really no other way around this, either change the composition of the court or accept decades of right wing rule.

I suppose targeted assassinations are also a solution, but packing the court seems more palatable.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Really no other way around this, either change the composition of the court or accept decades of right wing rule.

I suppose targeted assassinations are also a solution, but packing the court seems more palatable.
Click to expand...

what is your objection to a right wing court? Do you think their interpretation of the constitution is incorrect?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I just want to know if they think the decision is incorrect or correct but bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are incorrect.
There is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no constitutional provision that says that the unborn are humans.

If we change the Constitution to define life to begin at conception there might be an argument.
But the Court is doing the second step before the first.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Yes, they are incorrect.
There is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, there is no constitutional provision that says that the unborn are humans.

If we change the Constitution to define life to begin at conception there might be an argument.
But the Court is doing the second step before the first.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't what the court was ruling on?
 
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.
 
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...

So could a rapists.

The "Holy crap there are so many just shockingly evil scenarios here" is obviously the point.

This the Right flexing its muscle, showing that they still can do whatever they want.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If women have to give birth, then the men responsible for the pregnancy should have to pay for it and pay for child support after the birth.
Click to expand...
Pretty much generally the case.

Stacyhs said:
Yes, it would. Federal laws take precedent over state laws. Now, whether or not there could be a federal law is another topic.
Click to expand...
Federal law does only takes precedent if the Feds have the authority do make said law. Federal law on say, the election process of Electors, would not take precedent for for instance.

The Great Zaganza said:
Even if shut down somehow, I predict that the "get rich if you snitch" provision of the bill will become popular in Red States.
Click to expand...
A practice pioneered by CA in the way they handle ADA rules.

uke2se said:
Expand the Supreme Court. Immediately. Get every Democrat onboard. Bribe Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema. Put in four extra judges.
Click to expand...
Then the next time the GOP has the congress what happens?

Constitutional amendment to limit the court to 9 justices with an 18 year term each rotating every two years. Someone dies or retires, they get replaced for the remainder of the term.

Abortion is another dumb political argument in the US because its dominated by the extremes. Most Americans agree with most Europeans on this. Abortion should be legal and relatively easy for the first trimester, mostly illegal and difficult in the third with a sliding transition starting in the second. As a legal framework to that effect would largely defang the issue, no politicians are for it.

Edit to add, this ruling was not on the constitutionality of the law or when life begins or what not, it was on the legal technicalities of the law suit. Personally, I think they should have granted the stay based on the notion that this is a very weird law.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
A practice pioneered by CA in the way they handle ADA rules.
Click to expand...

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.

The Texas law is written that anyone, anywhere can snitch on someone and get paid. They don't have to be involved in any way whatsoever. notice your neighbor got an abortion? Time to get paid. Mad at an ex? Time to get paid. A noxious vexatious litigant? Time to get paid.

The Texas law does away with the entire legal concept of "standing", where a person brining a claim has to show that they are impacted in some direct way. It's a free-for-all now.

While I'm not surprised the SCOTUS didn't protect abortion rights, I'm surprised that they don't care about this part of the law that turns the entire state of Texas into a malicious litigation nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom