Texas bans abortion.

[TheGoldcountry]

Jen Psaki on abortion rights.



WARNING: If you follow link and read comments, you may feel the need to headbutt your monitor.

 

[kookbreaker]

Jen Psaki on abortion rights.



WARNING: If you follow link and read comments, you may feel the need to headbutt your monitor.

Thankfully I didn't, but that guy trying to tie in Biden's Catholicism with abortion rights was a whiny little b**** wasn't he?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Thankfully I didn't, but that guy trying to tie in Biden's Catholicism with abortion rights was a whiny little b**** wasn't he?

I thought a good reply would have been "That sounds like an issue for Pres. Biden and his priest, not us, don't you think?"

 

[dudalb]

I thought a good reply would have been "That sounds like an issue for Pres. Biden and his priest, not us, don't you think?"

It's possible to think Abortion is wrong, but still think it should not be forbidden by law.

 

[dudalb]

So, you think there might be a another civil war coming?

Anybody woht does not think that after the events of 1/6 has their haed in the sand.

 

[turingtest]

Here is a link (at capitol.texas.gov) for the enrolled version of the bill. Just a couple of notes-

1) For those saying this bill will enable those guilty of rape or incest to profit off of their crimes, this is not true- the law is horrific enough as it is that it needs no embellishment to make it worse, and inaccurate criticisms are just ammunition for the right to accuse liberals of being hysterical ninnies. Section 171.207, subsection (j) specifically says:

(j) Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this
section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion
patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other
act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.

2) Subsection (f) of the same section requires the defendant to provide an affirmative defense- they assume the burden of proof (to a preponderance standard). And, from what I can tell from the listed exclusions for affirmative defense, the only thing left is for the defendant to provide her records showing compliance with the law's heartbeat standards. IOW, she can avail herself of HIPAA, nobody's forcing her to show her records, but it'll cost her.

Anyway, as I said, a horrific bill. Women are cattle, and the kind of person who used to have to be satisfied with just the moral smugness that comes with "holier than thou" can now add a nice monetary profit to that.

 

[Warp12]

Here is a link (at capitol.texas.gov) for the enrolled version of the bill. Just a couple of notes-

1) For those saying this bill will enable those guilty of rape or incest to profit off of their crimes, this is not true- the law is horrific enough as it is that it needs no embellishment to make it worse, and inaccurate criticisms are just ammunition for the right to accuse liberals of being hysterical ninnies. Section 171.207, subsection (j) specifically says:

(j) Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this
section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion
patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other
act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.

That is a pretty significant clarification. It makes some of the more outlandish comments in this thread very interesting. Thanks.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm wondering, since it's now okay to sue people for exercising their civil rights, I'm wondering what else we can sue them for.

I'm thinking, first and foremost, people that won't wear masks and people that listen to Christian rock.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm wondering, since it's now okay to sue people for exercising their civil rights, I'm wondering what else we can sue them for.

I'm thinking, first and foremost, people that won't wear masks and people that listen to Christian rock.

Well, there’s already a precedent set where someone who intentionally tries to spread a disease to others can be charged with assault. Doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to extend that to a COVID positive person who refuses to mask or quarantine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

That is a pretty significant clarification. It makes some of the more outlandish comments in this thread very interesting. Thanks.

And there it is...

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's possible to think Abortion is wrong, but still think it should not be forbidden by law.

It's possible for some people.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Based on the amusing precedents from Florida, where the laws passed to "jail the libs" ends up catching only the right-wing morons instead, it should be easy enough to make the first people hoisted by their own petard of this ridiculous bill the very people who promoted and made it law.

The bill does not restrict who can bring such suits, nor how many times, nor prevent repeats. And it puts the onus of proof on the accused not the accuser.

Imagine, then, if every TX state legislator who voted for this bill was sued individually along with their wives and daughters for procuring, or aiding and abetting, abortions "in secret". As per this law. These suits can be raised by every citizen of the USA who believes in the constitutionality of Roe v Wade. So that would be millions of suits raised within days, and these silly legislators would have to contest each and every one of them. Even just to dismiss these alone would take years of court administrative time and expense. Then as they are dismissed, file more suits.

In effect, the idea is to totally overwhelm the TX legal system with cases against the very people who created the legislation. Taste of their own medicine. And who knows! Some of the cases may even succeed (as per an article referenced earlier about anti-abortionists getting abortions), exposing them as hypocrites and costing the state in revenue.

 

[Craig4]

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.

It's not about guns. It's about getting a court ruling on the bounty hunter civil suit system used in the Texas law. The SCOTUS will hear a gun case using the bounty hunter system.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's not about guns. It's about getting a court ruling on the bounty hunter civil suit system used in the Texas law. The SCOTUS will hear a gun case using the bounty hunter system.

The SCOTUS has no problem being hypocritical. It will strike down liberal laws while maintaining conservative ones.

 

[turingtest]

And there it is...

Yep. Right on cue.

 

[ZiprHead]

Texas - That one star on their flag is their Yelp review.

 

[Warp12]

Yep. Right on cue.

Right on cue for what?

Based on the information that was presented here, I already posted that I thought this legislation to be ridiculous. I didn't fly off the rails however, based upon assumptions. Now I see it was foolish for me to assume that what was being posted was accurate.

We can clearly see that some people are more than willing to adopt extreme views without research of the facts.

 

[crescent]

Based on the amusing precedents from Florida, where the laws passed to "jail the libs" ends up catching only the right-wing morons instead, it should be easy enough to make the first people hoisted by their own petard of this ridiculous bill the very people who promoted and made it law.

The bill does not restrict who can bring such suits, nor how many times, nor prevent repeats. And it puts the onus of proof on the accused not the accuser.

Imagine, then, if every TX state legislator who voted for this bill was sued individually along with their wives and daughters for procuring, or aiding and abetting, abortions "in secret". As per this law. These suits can be raised by every citizen of the USA who believes in the constitutionality of Roe v Wade. So that would be millions of suits raised within days, and these silly legislators would have to contest each and every one of them. Even just to dismiss these alone would take years of court administrative time and expense. Then as they are dismissed, file more suits.

In effect, the idea is to totally overwhelm the TX legal system with cases against the very people who created the legislation. Taste of their own medicine. And who knows! Some of the cases may even succeed (as per an article referenced earlier about anti-abortionists getting abortions), exposing them as hypocrites and costing the state in revenue.

A Tip Line to report abortions is already being used this way:

Texas Tip Line for Reports of ‘Illegal’ Abortions Flooded With Shrek Porn, Other Memes

Here's the form itself, which no one absolutely should ever just spam with useless junk or false reports:

https://prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/

 

[Bob001]

That is a pretty significant clarification. It makes some of the more outlandish comments in this thread very interesting. Thanks.

Do you really think a rapist would try to sue under this law? And without reading the whole law, I suspect that it finds a way to exclude only rapists who have been prosecuted, not cases where rape victims chose not to press charges. Those can be written off as "he said/she said." What's much more significant is that the law makes no exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Here is a link (at capitol.texas.gov) for the enrolled version of the bill. Just a couple of notes-

1) For those saying this bill will enable those guilty of rape or incest to profit off of their crimes, this is not true- the law is horrific enough as it is that it needs no embellishment to make it worse, and inaccurate criticisms are just ammunition for the right to accuse liberals of being hysterical ninnies. Section 171.207, subsection (j) specifically says:

2) Subsection (f) of the same section requires the defendant to provide an affirmative defense- they assume the burden of proof (to a preponderance standard). And, from what I can tell from the listed exclusions for affirmative defense, the only thing left is for the defendant to provide her records showing compliance with the law's heartbeat standards. IOW, she can avail herself of HIPAA, nobody's forcing her to show her records, but it'll cost her.

Anyway, as I said, a horrific bill. Women are cattle, and the kind of person who used to have to be satisfied with just the moral smugness that comes with "holier than thou" can now add a nice monetary profit to that.

But it does not prevent family of those who raped a woman to bring suit, so that clause still doesn't really protect a rape victim.