Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The beginning of the end for Roe v Wade?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The web page for reporting abortion tips is being swamped by people making false reports. I seriously doubt it's going to be practically enforceable even if the GOP had hired someone competent to design the web page.

    The Governor of Texas is responsible for the road network in the state. The people of Texas elects the Governor. Thus, if someone is aided in obtaining an abortion through travelling on a Texas road administered by the state, the entire population of Texas is criminally liable for collectively having elected the Governor.

    It's complete idiocy.

    Comment


    • #32
      I am pretty sure the implementation is not the point. The threat of being overwhelmed by suits is enough to close abortion clinics and providers. No one actually needs to file a suit.

      I heard a similar thing happened with a law about "impersonating an election official" laws being applied to volunteers for Voter Registration volunteers, and it effectively shut down voter registration drives in many states. I will have to look for the article again.

      Implementation does not matter, only the threat of legal action is enough to shut down the unwanted behavior.

      New Laws Have Basically Ended Voter Registration Drives In Some Parts Of The U.S.

      https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/10304...Of%20The%20U.S.

      In Kansas, one law effectively shuts down voter registration drives.

      It's now a felony offense to impersonate an election official, and the law creates a vague standard for breaking it, a standard that depends on impressions. It criminalizes engaging in conduct that might seem like something an election official would do.

      Davis Hammet, president of the Kansas civic engagement group Loud Light, says that subjective standard would probably include work his volunteers do, which includes approaching people with clipboards and registering them to vote.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Easy E View Post
        After reading some of the law, I wonder why a lawyer (from anywhere in the world no less) not just accuse everyone in Texas of aiding and abetting an abortion. If I lose, I do not pay court costs, and if I win I could get $10K. Why wouldn't I just accuse everyone with a Driver's License? Ti be extra sleazy I could offer to settle out of court for $5K in bitcoin instead of following through with the suit?

        I am sure I am missing something here. However, this looks like a really weird and poorly written law trying really hard to get around the "State Enforcement" part of the legal system.
        That’s the part people aren’t fucking getting. This isn’t about going after women (in fact the law doesn’t let you sue the woman at all because it doesn’t make abortion itself a crime only administering or aiding in one).

        This is straight up no exaggeration how the fucking STASI operated.

        Weaponize citizens against citizens. Make it legal to break people for nothing but breaking from the party line. Instill an air of fear and paranoia into society.

        This law won’t be used to go after women. It’s proscriptions are so vague and it’s granting of standing so broad it can be used to sue a Democratic Party candidate for advocating the laws repeal. It can be used to let a pro-life group sue a doctor. A church can sue the AMA for advocating abortion as a medical procedure.

        This law is actually far more insidious than stopping abortion. It’s legalizing the waging of the culture war as a civil tort while stripping the defendants of any and all legal protections. It’s not about getting ten grand. It’s about ruining your ideological enemies with frivolous lawsuits they are explicitly barred from stopping and forced to pay for regardless of the outcome.

        This is literally how liberty dies.
        Last edited by Lord0fHats; 09-02-2021, 07:37 PM.

        Comment


        • SilverbackWookie
          SilverbackWookie commented
          Editing a comment
          I think this law will be mooted once SCOTUS rules this fall on the Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions.

          Either way they rule, there will be no teeth for this TX law.

          I think once the first lawsuit is filed, the district court will then issue an injunction and rightly so, to adjudicate how the courts should approach laws like that. So, I don't think it's going to be "in play" for long.

        • Easy E
          Easy E commented
          Editing a comment
          By then the consequences of even having the law on the books will make its repeal moot.

      • #34
        I have read that the reporting lines and webpage, where you can report people that you think are involved with an abortion, are being spammed by people on TikTok attaching Shrek memes and furry porn

        Comment


        • #35
          SilverbackWookie, replying in full comment for easier quotes and long post.

          I think this law will be mooted once SCOTUS rules this fall on the Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions.
          SCOTUS won't rule this fall.

          They'll hear the case this fall. We might have a ruling on Dobbs until next spring.

          For people who are absolutely shit at math like me that's as much as 7 months from now. As of today clinics and providers in Texas have cancelled appointments and are no longer providing abortion services to women past the 6 week benchmark, which is basically everyone who had one. Hardly anyone knows they're pregnant at six weeks which is an insanely more restrictive line than the one Mississippi wants to enforce (15 weeks, and seriously, who here is going to put real money on Mississippi not copying this law like all the other red states?).

          Despite the immediate and irreversible damage done, the Supreme Court has shrugged at a 'probably unconstitutional law' and refused to grant a stay on its implementation while claiming providers can't prove they will be damaged by this law.

          And that is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

          Damage was done the moment the law went into affect and providers began canceling care and appointments. It was further done when the court allowed this insane law to stand for months. They have their heads up their collective asses and should have flunked out of law school if they seriously think there's no damage to be done or need anyone to explain it to them.

          And that's just the abortion side of this, to wit I will say fuck abortion we all have a much bigger problem on our hands and everyone is falling for the fucking red herring.

          The court just declared constitutionality doesn't matter and doesn't damage anyone if its ignored even with a law designed from top to bottom to rape constitutionality in its sleep.

          Either way they rule, there will be no teeth for this TX law.
          It already has no teeth.

          That's the entire point. The state isn't enforcing a ban on abortion or filing charges against anyone for aiding and abetting one. They're outsourcing it to private citizens by granting anyone anywhere standing to sue. It forces defendents to pay all legal fees. Bars them from counter suing or seeking a change of venue. Grants wide latitude for plaintiffs to pursue discovery. It's fucking weaponized paper terrorism. Under this statute, frivelous lawsuits are completely legal and have no consequences whatsoever. It practically rewrites tort law in any case where a plaintiff sues a random person for aiding and abetting abortions after 6 weeks.

          That's fucking insane.

          All of that in itself is an egregious violation of the law, one so insanely novel and revolutionary that element of SB 8 alone should have justified an immediate stay. The ramifications of this law are huge, touch on everything from constitutionality to procedural to evidentiary. How can a random citizen in Missouri sue a Texas Citizen for something that happened in Arkansas? The law explicitly includes going out of state for an abortion. How is Texas allowed to process a civil suit for something that happened in another state? How on earth is someone in Idaho even going to know a woman in San Antonio was ever pregnant, let alone had an abortion?

          Which is where the second level of insanity in this law comes into play;

          I think once the first lawsuit is filed,
          Sure, when exactly? And by whom?

          Before the plaintiffs went to SCOTUS for relief, the Texas court system basically told them to shove off and eat shit. That in itself was probably grounds for an immediate stay because canceling a hearing unilaterally and denying all motions at the appeals level is fucking unheard of. SCOTUS apparently was completely uninterested in that utterly bizarre turn in this law's journey to the books, despite it being 'probably unconstitutional.'

          There are so many reasons for a stay to be granted on this 'probably unconstitutional law' that it boggles the mind. And if they were looking at deciding a similar case and rendering this one moot soonish, why no stay? Why is damage allowed to be wrought in Texas while it is blocked in Mississippi?

          Suck shit and eat it until someone sues is the assbackwards way the court system is supposed to work. It's supposed to work like Dobbs where the implications of a ban of abortion after 15 weeks were hugely consequential to interested parties and the appeals court stayed the law for review rather than shrug and say "oops sorry" years later after deciding the law was unconstitutional. The law is supposed to favor the status quo outside of the most extreme cases but here SCOTUS told the status quo to shove off and deal with it.

          And again, fuck abortion. There is no right this scheme can't be used to attack. Gun rights and free speech being the most immediately obvious examples. If New York passed a law banning hate speech and granted standing for anyone anywhere to sue Fox News for allowing Tucker Carlson to be a hateful bigot on the air, that law would have been shot down so fast Tucker Carlson would be river dancing on his desk by show time.

          You seriously think a court that lets this stand despite all the insanity inherent to the very ideas this law proposes is a court prepared to reaffirm Roe v. Wade as the law of the land?

          How much money are you ready on bet on that?

          And never mind that Dobbs deals with fundamentally different questions than S.B. 8. Even if the court unquestionably reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in Dobbs without any attempt to shave a religious liberty exemption here or a states rights exemption there, it won't stop S.B. 8. S.B. 8 will stay on the books and the fucking Stasi wannabes will litigate it and the 5th circuit has already told people suing to stop it to shove off once with no legal rationale given. S.B. 8 could be law for years, casting an air of quiet terror and threat against abortion providers, clinics, their patients and their patients' families and that's only if no one does the obvious and weaponizes this law to harass the enemies of the conservative grievance caucus.

          the district court will then issue an injunction and rightly so
          The 5th circuit has made it pretty damn clear they don't care.

          So, I don't think it's going to be "in play" for long.
          It never should have come into play at all. This is barely two steps away from thought policing, which is really fucking rich given what all the MAGA babies have been whining about for the past year on every social media platform and TV channel they can find.

          The fact it was, and in so few words with such insane reasoning, is a very big tell of what's to come and I don't think it's that Roe v. Wade will be affirmed, but yet again, fuck abortion it's the least of our worries with what S.B. 8 represents.
          Last edited by Lord0fHats; 09-02-2021, 10:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #36
            Lord0fHats You bring up excellent points and I share the majority of concerns. I also wish they would have put a stay on this law until the case was fully heard and decided. However, I don't think (and I am hoping, and praying) that this isn't yet indicative of the Supreme Court being doomed or needing to be abolished as you've suggested.

            I am hoping that SilverbackWookie is correct and that the Mississippi law will be decided (and found unconstitutional) and that the decision will be broad enough that it ends up making the Texas law unconstitutional as well (as I believe that it is unconstitutional, again for many of the reasons you've already stated).

            The situations are not entirely analogous, but part of the reason I have some hope is due to the way this same, right-leaning SCOTUS, handled last year's case regarding transporting firearms in New York City. The law was blatantly unconstitutional. It essentially restricted licensed handgun owners in New York City from transporting their legally owned handguns only to several shooting ranges within city limits. They were not allowed to transport the handgun anywhere outside the city limits, including to other homes or properties they owned, shooting ranges outside city limits, locations where they could hunt, etc. Once the case made it to SCOTUS, New York City amended the law to allow handgun owners to transport their firearm outside of city limits. This was likely a strategic move by gun control advocates as they wouldn't have wanted SCOTUS to rule on the case and set a precedent. Even though the law was blatantly unconstitutional, SCOTUS decided not to hear the case since the law had been amended, even though they probably could have and set a more pro-second amendment precedent.

            I am hopeful this will end up being a similar chain of events, and that SCOTUS will eventually rule the law unconstitutional and we can stop doing this ridiculous culture war song and dance routine. It would absolutely have been better if they had just put a stay on the law and ruled it unconstitutional, and I wish they would haven, but they haven't even done that for other laws that you would think a right-leaning SCOTUS would be more apt to do, such as in the New York City handgun law. Unfortunately, that means someone will likely have to be the "test case," which is horrible, but I'm hoping (much like other laws that are clearly massive infringements of constitutional rights) that it will play out in favor of the rights of the people in the end.

            Comment


            • SilverbackWookie
              SilverbackWookie commented
              Editing a comment
              Hordini I'm right where you're at.

              Fundamentally, I just want SCOTUS to rule concisely here so all this sturm and drang over the abortion topic is put it to bed, at least at the federal level.

              That Mississippi case in the fall is interesting and the SCOTUS could go in a lot of directions:
              1) They could rule it unconstitutional and reaffirm Casey, thus this TX law (and the like) would also be rendered unconstitutional.

              2) They could update the standards in Casey allowing the Mississippi law (ban after 15 weeks), which is actually inline with most EU countries (which would render the TX law unconstitutional).

              3) Or, they could use this opportunity to take another bite at Casey/Roe and rule that unconstitutional sending all abortion laws to be handled in each 50 states (ie, federalism).

              But, one thing I do agree with you and Lord0fHats is the novel nature of this law (citizens, not states, are effectively the enforcer of this policy) is really myopic and opens doors for other activists to push for laws to "enforce" their hobby horse to circumvent the usual court behaviors.

          • #37
            Is the saviour of common sense unintended long term consequences? Like a drop in workers moving to Texas, less people applying for Texas universities, reduced tourism etc.... or are there enough fuckwits in Texas that any effect will be insignificant?

            Comment


            • Herzlos2
              Herzlos2 commented
              Editing a comment
              Is there anyone left who'd boycott Texas over this that isn't already boycotting them over something else?

              I guess if it's too risky to run a doctors surgery or hospital in Texas, and enough of them moved over state lines, that might encourage something, but given that Texas seems to be a charicature of a self destructive backward state I'm not sure it'd result in the expected outcome.

          • #38
            Some great summary there!

            I have a couple of additional questions:

            1. Would crowdfunding to raise money to help defend against these harassment cases be deemed facilitating an abortion and thus be fair game for being sued as well?

            2. Given there's absolutely no restriction on these claims having any merit, is there anything to stop someone launching an equivalent case in the other direction? Say A sues B with no grounds, claiming that A helped facilititate an abortion and ran up thousands of bucks in pointless discovery, could B then sue A with an equally garbage claim and run up thousands in pointless discovery? B's case being thrown out as vexatious would stand in a good defense for A's case also being thrown out.

            Is there actually any way to fight this beyond drowning the stasi line in noise?

            Comment


            • SilverbackWookie
              SilverbackWookie commented
              Editing a comment
              1) Yup. There's an entire cottage industry of just that here.

              2) If A loses, then B can get the courts to force A to pay for all legal fees (not cheap!) and court fees, which is also grounds for B to counter-sue.

            • Herzlos2
              Herzlos2 commented
              Editing a comment
              I thought part of this new law was that B can't countersue A for costs. So for A it's win-win and B it's lose-lose.

            • Disciple of Fate
              Disciple of Fate commented
              Editing a comment
              Correct:

              "Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees."
              https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/u...-abortion.html

              Counter suing likely wouldn't work under the new law, because they aren't entitled to it even if they win in the first place.

          • #39
            Sure, this monumentally fucked-up non-law will eventually be struck down. But that will take many months if not years. This entry-level Handmaid's Tale bullshit is ruining lives RIGHT NOW. Fucking regressives.

            Comment


            • #40
              People seem to forget that abortions have been a part of civilization since the dawn of time. There have always been desperate women in dire circumstances that feel the best/only thing they can do is terminate a pregnancy. Always have been, always will be. This sort of crap is just going to make it more dangerous and cost lives in doing so. The so called Pro-life stance is bullshit,. This is religious belief being enshrined in law. Instead of going to a doctor its going to mean coat hangers and other far more dangerous methods. On some level these people know this, but couldn't care less.

              Comment


              • #41
                "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
                Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

                - Dave Barnhart, Pastor, United Methodist Church

                Comment


                • BranDawri
                  BranDawri commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I'm gonna steal that one. That's good.

              • #42
                https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti...ry?id=50274843


                This fuck is one of my buddies neighbors. Few years ago now but sums up all these bible clutching politicians trying to legislate their morality

                Comment


                • #43
                  Im always amazed at the number of anti-abortion activists who in turn get abortions without any kind of irony meter explosion.

                  Because it's clearly about punishing the women and not about the life.

                  Comment


                  • BobtheInquisitor
                    BobtheInquisitor commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I feel at this point it’s just another meaningless point-scoring mechanism, such as lying, sexual assault, flip flopping, whatever. It’s a thing that they can point to in the other for outrage while happily ignoring when their own team does it. The outrage isn’t the act itself, but the other.

                  • feeder
                    feeder commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Yup, another example of "rules for thee, not for me" mentality of the terminally self-righteous regressives

                • #44
                  Originally posted by Mikosan View Post
                  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti...ry?id=50274843


                  This fuck is one of my buddies neighbors. Few years ago now but sums up all these bible clutching politicians trying to legislate their morality
                  An abortion ban is never really a ban.

                  It's just punishing the poor for being poor. The rich will always have the money to find an abortion when they want one. It's the same deal with a lot of things like drugs. The only way anyone will ever wrap their heads around this is to understand that there is no actual moral pursuit here. The rank and file pro-lifer might have a legitimate belief in their cause but the people organizing and directing them and passing these laws do not.

                  Rules for thee, not for me, or in this case the now 20 year old adage "the only moral abortion is my abortion."

                  It's the politics of in and out groups where the in group gains all the benefits of liberty and legal protections while the out group suffers the deprivations they 'deserve' and the oppression of law enforcement to keep them from becoming too uppity. They've coopted the genuine moral refrain that is frankly shared by everyone (seriously, no one likes abortion, it's legality is just the least of available evils) and turned it, like many things in modern Conservative politics, into a weapon for white power politics.

                  It's especially ironic now.

                  Poisonous vaccines in my body? Nazism!

                  The government's hand jammed up the womb? Stop whining baby murderers!

                  It was hilarious when anti-vaxxers started chanting "my body, my choice" thinking they were clever. Now it's just further proof that you can't engage honestly with trolls.
                  Last edited by Lord0fHats; 09-03-2021, 09:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #45
                    If people were really pro-life, they'd be pushing for automatic cadaveric organ donation with no exceptions. But we know they won't do that, because they think a corpse has more of a right to bodily autonomy than a living woman.

                    My view of the abortion argument is in line with Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defence of Abortion", eloquently demonstrated by Philosophy Tube
                    Last edited by Too Hot To Trot; 09-03-2021, 09:39 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X