Texas bans abortion.

[Fast Eddie B]

“(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut…”

Fascinating. I always thought the cutting of the umbilical cord was considered the “bright line”.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've been skimming the thread but thought it would be quicker to just ask:

Is it the case that Texas's new law does not restrict suits against an abortion assister to just one "bounty hunter"? I have the impression that everyone everywhere can sue, so long as they do so in a Texas court.

It struck me that Google has quite a lot of money so all it would need is for someone to use Google Maps to navigate their way to an abortion clinic and a third world nation might boost its economy by organising for each of its citizens to submit a complaint to a Texas court and collect their $10,000 windfall.

Because, and I keep having to point this out, the purpose of this law is to allow right wing Texans to harass women. And it will be enforced that way.

All this "Well what if we did this to catch the law in how stupid, contradictory, and basically unenforceable within it's own contest this law is" musing are such a waste of time.

Texas knows what this laws is really for. We aren't going to "gotcha" them into enforcing it some other way. The whole "One weird trick" things people keep suggesting will not work.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because, and I keep having to point this out, the purpose of this law is to allow right wing Texans to harass women. And it will be enforced that way.

All this "Well what if we did this to catch the law in how stupid, contradictory, and basically unenforceable within it's own contest this law is" musing are such a waste of time.

Texas knows what this laws is really for. We aren't going to "gotcha" them into enforcing it some other way. The whole "One weird trick" things people keep suggesting will not work.

I'm sorry if it's a much repeated topic; like I said I just skimmed the thread looking for an answer after hearing a podcast item about the law.

But on the other hand, it would hardly be the first time a law got used for purposes the legislators didn't intend. It's plain what the law is for in a socio/political sense but, having created it, how people exploit it is surely a matter of what the law is, not what it's for.

 

[Lithrael]

If I prepare a perfect cake mix and put it in the oven, but decide 5 minutes later I don't want a cake, and then throw it out...people will ask why. If I tell them it wasn't viable, only the liberals will understand.

If you notice the potatoes in your pantry have sprouted eyes, decide you don't want actual potato plants, and throw them out, nobody will ask why.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Mods please ban multiple people for the "potential infracts" that could occur in the future, thank you.

//This is sarcasm, shove any clutching pearls up your....//

 

[Norman Alexander]

I've been skimming the thread but thought it would be quicker to just ask:

Is it the case that Texas's new law does not restrict suits against an abortion assister to just one "bounty hunter"? I have the impression that everyone everywhere can sue, so long as they do so in a Texas court.

It struck me that Google has quite a lot of money so all it would need is for someone to use Google Maps to navigate their way to an abortion clinic and a third world nation might boost its economy by organising for each of its citizens to submit a complaint to a Texas court and collect their $10,000 windfall.

Hmmm... *takes notes* I will need a nest-egg when our lockdown lifts. And I was wondering how to get one.

NB. The legislation as written does say "anyone", not "US citizen" or "Texas resident citizen". Yet another legal faux pas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sorry if it's a much repeated topic; like I said I just skimmed the thread looking for an answer after hearing a podcast item about the law.

But on the other hand, it would hardly be the first time a law got used for purposes the legislators didn't intend. It's plain what the law is for in a socio/political sense but, having created it, how people exploit it is surely a matter of what the law is, not what it's for.

I wasn't trying to be snarky but it seems like the only solution the Left can ever come up with these days to counter the Right is yet another variation on "I know! We'll trap them by using the standard they don't even actually really hold against them!"

At this point the Dems are that one guy that get's left behind during every heist movie to take the fall because he assumes there really is honor among the other thieves. Except even that is giving them too much credit because Dems aren't part of the gang. It's like one of the hostage doing it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I wasn't trying to be snarky but it seems like the only solution the Left can ever come up with these days to counter the Right is yet another variation on "I know! We'll trap them by using the standard they don't even actually really hold against them!"

When the Far Right stacks the legislature and courts, undermining the legislation itself is just about all that is left available.

 

[JoeMorgue]

When the Far Right stacks the legislature and courts, undermining the legislation itself is just about all that is left available.

Yeah but who's going to actually be springing these "One simple trick they don't want you to know" traps on them after we identify them?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I wasn't trying to be snarky but it seems like the only solution the Left can ever come up with these days to counter the Right is yet another variation on "I know! We'll trap them by using the standard they don't even actually really hold against them!"

Yeah, no problem. It just looks as if this law is exploitable by people worldwide who neither know nor care about US left/right politics but can see what looks like an opportunity to get free money awarded by Texas courts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm saying Texas will uphold only the implementations of the law that meet the spirit and not the letter of the law and it will not bother them at all.

They aren't going to get trapped in their own hypocrisy/double standards and we need to stop treating that as the MacGuffin we need to catch.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Yeah but who's going to actually be springing these "One simple trick they don't want you to know" traps on them after we identify them?

Did you read the Guardian report I linked? Short answer: Initially, nutcases.

 

[cosmicaug]

True, you'd be against the destruction of these embryos if you were 100% pure pro-life. But I don't know that you'd be against the mere existence of In vitro clinics themselves. In fact, you'd probably want those frozen embryos put in women so then can develop into humans.

The nature of such clinics is that excess embryos are almost always created. That is, embryos will be created that will never develop into human beings (I assume they remain stored for some time & then get discarded?).

In fact, it's not out of the question that multiple embryo transfer will be done to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy and that, if the process results in multiple embryos successfully implanting & developing, "selective reduction" (euphemism for selective abortion) will be performed (it reduces the chance of various complications including miscarriage).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm saying Texas will uphold only the implementations of the law that meet the spirit and not the letter of the law and it will not bother them at all.

They aren't going to get trapped in their own hypocrisy/double standards and we need to stop treating that as the MacGuffin we need to catch.

I don't think it's so much a risk of a double standards trap, but rather that there are probably some contingent of right wing freaks that are opposed to IVF and medicine derived from fetal tissues, and there's no reason to believe that the steady drift to the extreme right will stop at simply outlawing abortion.

We already see some murmurs of anti-vax freaks trying to shoehorn the issue into an anti-abortion thing by claiming it's unethical to take the vax that was developed using fetal tissues.

 

[cosmicaug]

So you want to force women to carry to term and then give the resulting child up for adoption.

When the reasons for the abortion in lack of finances, home, stable environment, lack of ability to care for the child, perhaps yes, in some cases. (not rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger)

Adoption solves the problems you mentioned in your previous post, that was my point.

If your preference for not aborting is based on "OMG, think of the child!", I do not understand what rape or incest have to do with it.

 

[cosmicaug]

Tumors have human cells. More than a six-week-old embryo. If you cut them, do they not bleed?

While walking along in desert sand, you suddenly look down and see a tumor crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over onto its back. The tumor lies there, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over, but it cannot do so without your help. You are not helping. Why?

 

[Paul2]

Bump for Warp12

Agreed. Do not conflate "held accountable" with the concept of "personal accountability".

What’s the difference in the case I mentioned? I don’t get that at all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would still say adoption is better than abortion. At least the child is alive.

Well sometimes, I mean it isn't like pregnancies before 10 are low risk. But maternal mortality is of course just damn funny when it happens to a pregnant child.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think it's pretty common for abortion discussions to get ludicrous when it is such a passionate issue for people.

In general one of the more interesting things is that abortion opponents don't spend more time trying to reduce abortions rather than restrict them.

Abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or not. If you reduced the cost of child care, and increased access to birth control, than there would be fewer people seeking abortions.

The interesting thing is that some of the same people opposing abortions are the same ones that advocate for policies that increase the number of people who would seek them.

If reasonable people on both sides came together and looked at ways to reduce the need for abortions, than you could actually get positive progress for both sides.

That is the clearest evidence that this whole movement is about punishing women for having sex, not saving precious babies.

Planned Parenthood is one of the few providers of low cost or free contraceptives in most of the communities where they exist. They are actively trying to reduce the number of pregnancies. So this isn’t a why can’t we work together to solve this problem. This is a only one side is actually trying to solve the problem.

When I was a teen a radio station handed out free condom keychains at all of the events. The conservatives were outraged. But that radio station was doing more to reduce abortions than any of them have ever done.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I am not against abortion in situations where the mother's life is at stake.

Can you provide an example of a situation where the mothers life is not at stake?