# The Structure of Texas' New Abortion Law is Deeply Concerning



## usernames can change now! (Sep 4, 2021)

Putting aside the issue of ethics in baby blending, the legal structure Texas used to perform an end-run around Roe is unsettling.

Consider:



> The ordinance shields Texas from lawsuits by saying state officials can’t enforce the abortion ban. Instead, private citizens can sue anyone who performs an abortion in the city or assists someone in obtaining one.



In the mind of an enterprising Californian Senator...



> The ordinance shields California from lawsuits by saying city officials can’t enforce the gun ban. Instead, private citizens can sue anyone who possesses a firearm in the city or assists someone in obtaining one.


----------



## Getting tard comed (Sep 4, 2021)

1) as someone in another post mentioned, this law has been what democrats have been trying for at least a decade to do with gun manufacturers so your concern is already noted. For them to break this bill apart they are arguing agaisnt their current method of attaining gun control. 

2) Unlike abortion, the right to bear arms is actually in the constitution. So while I understand people worrying that they will attempt the same with guns, it *shouldn't* legally be possible due to the 2nd amendment being protected. 

Once the Constitution doesn't matter at all and people don't have to pretend like it does like they do now then you can worry about a law like this one on guns. But in that situation I'd say you have bigger problems. 

All that said, whoever crafted this law did an awesome job. Rhetorically it's amazing as it's really uncomfortable to argue agaisnt a heartbeat for most normal people. Including a clause declaring if any part of the law is found unconstitutional or illegal only that provision of the law is removed but the rest of it stands is kind of genius. And the whole strategy is the same exact strategy the feds use to encourage states to pass laws and do what the feds want the states to do. The Right finally figured out how to play the game, so kudos to them. I'm genuinely looking forward to the legal challenges to it because right now, youay not like it, but it appears to be an incredibly well crafted law.

ignoring the literally anyone has standing to sue part and it may be golden. That's the first thing that's gonna go if I was going to bet on it.


----------



## ShortBusDriver (Sep 4, 2021)

The lawful protection and commerce act prevents people from suing gun manufactures for anything other than manufacturing defects or out right breaking the law.

It was passed into law for the specific purpose to stop Democrats from doing what Republicans are doing with abortion in Texas.

Republicans literally stole the Democrats gun control playbook.


----------



## Ita Mori (Sep 4, 2021)

It really was beautiful to see the neoliberal rhetoric and methodology used against them. 
I expect the DNC to focus even more efforts on turning the state blue, however. Insolence towards Democracy™ cannot be tolerated.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Getting tard comed said:
			
		

> 1) as someone in another post mentioned, this law has been what democrats have been trying for at least a decade to do with gun manufacturers


It's really not at all similar. Democrats have been trying to let victims of gun crime sue gun manufacturers, which is bullshit for entirely different reasons. This is empowering completely uninvolved citizens to sue for redress of issues that never affected them. The gun lawsuits go against established ideas of where liability falls, but this goes against the entire principle of civil action in general.


----------



## The Last Stand (Sep 5, 2021)

It shouldn't be possible to restrict citizen gun usage, but see several urban cities that have dracaion gun laws. Moreover, the execution of this law is already having drastic consequences as even taking a Lyft to a clinic is grounds for legal action.


----------



## NoodleFucker3000 (Sep 5, 2021)

Do people realize that you can, y'know,
Take a 30$ greyhound ticket outside of Texas? Or drive? 

Texas was it's own nation for like, a tiny ass part of history. Just go to another state holy shit the border wall is for the *other side*.


----------



## Scarlett Johansson (Sep 5, 2021)

Here's the thing. Abortions are fine. A lot of women cannot carry to full term nor can they afford the finances. Women die from it too. Why do you think women used to die in childbirth? And that was without anesthesia. 

It isn't a ~sin~ nor are you a ~murderer~ for aborting a fetus. If you can carry full term and deliver successfully then good for you. I believe rape victims should be allowed to abort.

But here is the problem. Its fucking Texas. Redder than Republican Texas lmao with its WASPy blonde white women and shit.


----------



## Troonos (Sep 5, 2021)

Not as unsettling as mass infanticide.


----------



## Oglooger (Sep 5, 2021)

What is this, 2010?
Just wear a condom, don't have kids if you're a genetic defect, victims of rape and incest or those who have detected thier baby to have diseases such as down syndrome  should be allowed to abort.
and those reasons are in the minority lol


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 5, 2021)

I cannot fathom how this law could be a bad idea.

omw to sit outside an abortion clinic with a camera and get a cool 10 grand from everyone who walks past.


----------



## Save Goober (Sep 5, 2021)

I don't get why the punishment for murder is only $10k. If I could murder regular people and my only risk was being sued for $10k I would do that a lot more often.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 5, 2021)

melty said:


> I don't get why the punishment for murder is only $10k.


If they cap damages at $10k it gets tried in a small claims court first, so it has to go through one extra appeal before it finally reaches the Supreme Court, where five conservative pro-life judges will glance at it very briefly and say "I like unborn babies but this is still too retarded to uphold".


----------



## Pentaborane (Sep 5, 2021)

Tragic for victims of rape. Seeing the liberals protest this so rabidly makes it almost worth it.

We've recently had a law like that in Poland, with the same critical flaw, no rape or malformed fetus exception. This will no doubt have tragic, lethal consequences.


----------



## Overcast (Sep 5, 2021)

Scarlett Johansson said:


> Here's the thing. Abortions are fine. A lot of women cannot carry to full term nor can they afford the finances. Women die from it too. Why do you think women used to die in childbirth? And that was without anesthesia.
> 
> It isn't a ~sin~ nor are you a ~murderer~ for aborting a fetus. If you can carry full term and deliver successfully then good for you. I believe rape victims should be allowed to abort.
> 
> But here is the problem. Its fucking Texas. Redder than Republican Texas lmao with its WASPy blonde white women and shit.


Your avatar makes your post ironic.


----------



## Solid Snek (Sep 5, 2021)

ShortBusDriver said:


> The lawful protection and commerce act prevents people from suing gun manufactures for anything other than manufacturing defects or out right breaking the law.
> 
> It was passed into law for the specific purpose to stop Democrats from doing what Republicans are doing with abortion in Texas.
> 
> Republicans literally stole the Democrats gun control playbook.


"We're not coming to take your abortions away. We're just saying that there's room in this country for common-sense infanticide control. All we're asking is that private citizens be empowered to hold abortion manufacturers accountable for the way their services are used."


----------



## Death Grip (Sep 5, 2021)

Thanks be to goodness that we live in an age where those seeking to kill their unborn babies can order the necessary tools through the Internet. Don't even need to leave the house, let alone visit an actual clinic.


----------



## Getting tard comed (Sep 5, 2021)

Dyn said:


> It's really not at all similar. Democrats have been trying to let victims of gun crime sue gun manufacturers, which is bullshit for entirely different reasons. This is empowering completely uninvolved citizens to sue for redress of issues that never affected them. The gun lawsuits go against established ideas of where liability falls, but this goes against the entire principle of civil action in general.


It also allows the Dad to sue the mom for denying him his child. Or the grandparents ect. And how do I know the baby killed isn't the baby that's going to cure a disease I have, or be my wife in Sharialand.

I'll repeat myself, I think that provision of the law is the first thing to go seeing as imo it is way too broad and subject to abuse and while an argument for some random fuck in Alaska to have standing could be made, it's not a particularly compelling argument to me. That said, I do believe a father who's kid was killed should be able to sue. Dads should have some say in this, particularly if you are going to stick them with a 21 year bill.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Getting tard comed said:
			
		

> It also allows the Dad to sue the mom for denying him his child. Or the grandparents ect. And how do I know the baby killed isn't the baby that's going to cure a disease I have, or be my wife in Sharialand.


That's not how damages work. Civil suits can only redress actual damages, not speculative potential damages. It's possible that potential fathers and maybe even grandparents might be considered to have standing, but even that's unlikely, since they're not actually losing anything they already had. So yes, that part of the bill is going to be struck down no matter what, and what's left after it does? Unless you get a massive shakeup from Dobbs vs Jackson's Women's Health, abortions will flip back to being defacto legal because nobody is authorised to do anything about them.

If you're hopeful for a real abortion ban, Dobbs vs Jackson is the one to watch. This is just going to be an abortion inconvenience for a year or two at best, and at worst it's an open invitation for state legislatures to start sponsoring frivolous lawsuit-trolling against anything they don't like.


----------



## ProtonMailManTheSequel (Sep 5, 2021)

It is not the least bit concerning as there is essentially a ZERO POINT ZERO per cent chance that the law will not be overturned by the Supreme Court (or, more properly, overturned by the district court, whose decision will be upheld by the 5th Circuit, whose decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court).

THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT UPHOLD THE TEXAS LAW YOU MORONS!     All it did was say "sorry leftists, no you cannot jump to the head of the line I don't care how special snowflake you think you are, you can wait your turn like everyone else."

Emergency "appeal a state law that only passed a week ago directly to the US Supreme Court" requests are NEVER GRANTED there is a PROCESS everyone has to go through no matter how "special" they are and (therefore) how important their special issue is.   

STOP LETTING YOURSELF BE PLAYED!


----------



## Poppavalyim Andropoff (Sep 5, 2021)

pro lifers are fucked in the head.


----------



## Getting tard comed (Sep 5, 2021)

@Dyn 

"That's not how damages work. Civil suits can only redress actual damages, not speculative potential damages. It's possible that potential fathers and maybe even grandparents might be considered to have standing, but even that's unlikely, *since they're not actually losing anything they already had.*"

Besides potential damages definitely being a thing in civil suits(that's part of injury claims, wrongful termination as well as defamation claims. Hell, Scarjo's lawyers included the potential earnings of Black Widow in their suit so yes, they are a thing) the bolded part is the crux of the debate. Clearly one side believes they are losing something they had. Whether that holds up in a court of law is what we have to watch for.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Getting tard comed said:


> Besides potential damages definitely being a thing in civil suits


There's a legal distinction between potential damages and speculative potential damages, the threshold generally being "proven reasonably likely to occur". Potential damages can be awarded, speculative damages cannot.


----------



## Getting tard comed (Sep 5, 2021)

Dyn said:


> There's a legal distinction between potential damages and speculative potential damages, the threshold generally being "proven reasonably likely to occur". Potential damages can be awarded, speculative damages cannot.


And a father or grandparent arguing for the joys of parenthood/grandparenthood if a pregnancy being carried to term and not terminated is "reasonably likely to occur". I feel like that's a pretty reasonable and sound argument to make. 

Hence why I think it's a pretty well structured law. The limit should be people with reasonable standing, so not a random, but people who would/should be involved in that potential child's life do have a reasonable argument for standing imo. 

Hence why we wil


----------



## Dyn (Sep 5, 2021)

Getting tard comed said:


> And a father or grandparent arguing for the joys of parenthood/grandparenthood if a pregnancy being carried to term and not terminated is "reasonably likely to occur". I feel like that's a pretty reasonable and sound argument to make.


Yeah, I also think that's reasonable enough to grant standing to prospective fathers. Grandparents and other relatives, I kind of doubt. I'd love to see it argued but I'm pretty sure that'll never happen since they can cherrypick which case they'll push all up the appeals chain, so it'll probably be one with a random no-standing Karen from another town as the plaintiff.

But assuming it was the father suing and his standing was accepted. I don't see how they can get past the constitutional rights issue, which I'm pretty sure is why they're careful not to let anyone sue the patient, just everyone else tangentially involved. Abortions are currently 4th amendment protected up to 22 weeks by Roe v Wade and PP v Casey. I don't know how private citizens suing each other over constitutional protected actions will play out when it's 4a instead of 1a related, but I'm pretty sure Roe vs Wade will have to go first.

I really don't see any of these lawsuits being able to succeed past the circuit court, but I'm pretty sure that's not the point of them.


----------



## Gig Bucking Fun (Sep 5, 2021)

No it isn't


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 5, 2021)

@Getting tard comed, "as someone in another post mentioned, this law has been what democrats have been trying for at least a decade to do with gun manufacturers so your concern is already noted. For them to break this bill apart they are arguing agaisnt their current method of attaining gun control."

This falls apart when you take into account that there is a difference between state and federal laws. California and Chicago both have laws that restrict the 2nd amendment to a greater degree than what is at a federal level. It is their right to do that, and I don't feel I should have a say in what they are doing in their state. This abortion bill is a state level ban of abortion after a certain amount of time after pregnancy. It isn't an outright ban, it does not penalize people who go out of state to have the abortions, yet if I buy a gun in another town and bring it to my home city; I'm committing a crime. It isn't even enforced by law enforcement, it is a civil enforcement of the restriction of abortion. After reading the law in full, I could see the "activist" or unethical doctor not reporting actual information or using legalese to supersede the fetal heart beat aspects of the law. If anything, this ban is just a "don't do this, you might open yourself up to legal and financial issues". 

IMO, it's a pretty innocuous legislation that has compromises built in, however, it's being talked up because it deals with the contentious topic of Abortion.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Sep 5, 2021)

Oglooger said:


> What is this, 2010?
> Just wear a condom, don't have kids if you're a genetic defect, victims of rape and incest or those who have detected thier baby to have diseases such as down syndrome  should be allowed to abort.
> and those reasons are in the minority lol
> View attachment 2513735


Despite being 7% of reasons, health and rape constitute 100% of the arguments for abortion


----------



## Kosher Dill (Sep 5, 2021)

Abortion is a sideshow. What's really important and interesting here is the changes to _standing_.

We've been long overdue for reforms to standing in the United States - very often, access to justice is frustrated or denied due to standing issues. Sometimes it's not practical to set up the perfect martyr to be your "Rosa Parks" test case. Sometimes the only person granted standing by the legal system will be an uncooperative, apathetic, or even hostile government functionary. And sometimes, especially in cases dealing with the surveillance state, the only people who would have standing to challenge government abuses are unknown or unknowable.

Texas is probably going too far by deputizing the entire population, but I hope this is the beginning of a national conversation on how best to ensure access to justice.


----------



## Polyboros2 (Sep 5, 2021)

Lol, wouldn't be great if the entire reason the Supreme Court passed on ruling on this was it's implications on gun control measures they avoid like the plague cause it involves giving Americans rights the government would wish it didn't.

LMAO, sorry women, protecting your rights come second to disarming the public.


----------



## Gingervitis (Sep 5, 2021)

ProtonMailManTheSequel said:


> Emergency "appeal a state law that only passed a week ago directly to the US Supreme Court" requests are NEVER GRANTED there is a PROCESS everyone has to go through no matter how "special" they are and (therefore) how important their special issue is.


There is one scenario (that I can remember) that allows you to cut in line to the Supreme Court, and its not this. If there is a lawsuit between two or more state governments, the Supreme Court is the first and last court to hear the lawsuit out. They’re not allowed to reject the case either, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 5, 2021)

Kosher Dill said:


> Texas is probably going too far by deputizing the entire population, but I hope this is the beginning of a national conversation on how best to ensure access to justice.


I think it is a perfect compromise. I hope beyond hope that it remains a state level issue and not something that goes to a federal level. Government tends to fuck things up, even if there are good intentions behind it; I'd rather the fuck up being a state level than a federal. Side note, what do you mean justice as it relates to the topic of abortion?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 5, 2021)

@usernames can change now! 


> Putting aside the issue of ethics in baby blending, the legal structure Texas used to perform an end-run around Roe is unsettling.



The way roe v wade did an end run to change a law that public opinion would have voted against for about two decades when it was put in place is itself unsettling, as is the fabricated Kinsey research that made people believe that abortions were much more common than they were (using a 40% prostitute sample who lived with their pimp as "low income married women") that served as the intellectual backdrop to roe v wade.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Sep 5, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:


> Side note, what do you mean justice as it relates to the topic of abortion?


As it relates to _any_ topic: getting meaningful action out of our court systems to enforce the law. A law that no prosecutor will prosecute, or no judge will hear cases under, is meaningless.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 6, 2021)

ProtonMailManTheSequel said:


> It is not the least bit concerning as there is essentially a ZERO POINT ZERO per cent chance that the law will not be overturned by the Supreme Court (or, more properly, overturned by the district court, whose decision will be upheld by the 5th Circuit, whose decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court)


It's still extremely concerning that a state government is empowering uninvolved people to launch frivolous mountain jew lawsuits at constitutionally protected actions. The law being on your side isn't much of a comfort if you don't have tens of thousands of dollars you're happy to to piss away on answering troll suits.

Any conservatives cheering this on because they hate abortions should be really, really worried about what the legislators in blue states are thinking about right now.


----------



## KooksandFreaks (Sep 6, 2021)

If father’s rights are to be a considered when a woman wants an abortion, then that makes the procedure more time-sensitive than it already is. Google tells me that paternity cannot be determined earlier than 8 or 9 weeks, effectively making abortion inaccessible in Texas to women who face a challenge from a potential father.


NoodleFucker3000 said:


> Take a 30$ greyhound ticket outside of Texas? Or drive?


Abortion is legal in every state. Texas is trying to make the conditions under which it gets performed so difficult to meet that it effectively renders abortion unavailable  there. Maybe you should be more concerned that SCOTUS failed to immediately uphold established legal precedent in favor of partisan politics.


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 6, 2021)

Dyn said:


> Any conservatives cheering this on because they hate abortions should be really, really worried about what the legislators in blue states are thinking about right now.


Why? What happens in another state ultimately doesn't concern, or shouldn't concern, other states. It's ideal but isn't always the case, keeping noses out of other state's businesses. 


KooksandFreaks said:


> Abortion is legal in every state. Texas is trying to make the conditions under which it gets performed so difficult to meet that it effectively renders abortion unavailable  there. Maybe you should be more concerned that SCOTUS failed to immediately uphold established legal precedent in favor of partisan politics.


How did they fail to uphold it? It isn't a ban, just restrictions akin to 8 round magazines. I also fail to see who it is a constitutional right to abort a baby.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 6, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:


> Why? What happens in another state ultimately doesn't concern, or shouldn't concern, other states. It's ideal but isn't always the case, keeping noses out of other state's businesses.


Because if Texas can do it over abortion, California can do it over firearm ownership or misgendering or cultural appropriation or whatever the fuck else they're mad about.



Absurdist Laughter said:


> I also fail to see who it is a constitutional right to abort a baby.


It's a fourth amendment right per Roe v Wade and Casey v PP.


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 6, 2021)

Dyn said:


> Because if Texas can do it over abortion, California can do it over firearm ownership or misgendering or cultural appropriation or whatever the fuck else they're mad about.
> 
> 
> It's a fourth amendment right per Roe v Wade and Casey v PP.


Minor correction, it is the 14th amendment.  Also, from Texas' position, this law does not infringe on Roe V Wade, citizens are able to leave the state and get an abortion without consequence and come home. It also requires that a doctor determine if there is a heart beat in the fetus, six weeks is just the running name for it and not set in stone because development of the fetus may be different from person to person.  It's gonna be tough and we'll have to see what the next Supreme Court will have to say about it. 

California does do it over firearms right now, it does not impact citizens of Texas. Those who are pro 2A, might have objections but it ultimately does not impact them if they live in another state. If Cali wants to take this state law and run with it, let'm, it is the state's right to do so just as it is the citizen's rights to move out of state.  Technically, California's state laws of legalization of marijuana at a federal level is illegal. That's the difference between Texas' heartbeat bill vs a federal ban of say automatic firearms. It is only on a state level and not a federal level.


----------



## KooksandFreaks (Sep 6, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:


> How did they fail to uphold it? It isn't a ban, just restrictions akin to 8 round magazines. I also fail to see who it is a constitutional right to abort a baby.


The Texas law is still in place, that’s how. Maybe the powers that be in the Lone Star state should be more concerned with keeping the power on.

And, btw, guns laws have become increasingly more lenient and less restrictive in recent years. Compare that to the availability of abortions in certain states and you might discover a disparity. Kind of retarded to liken the right to own a gun with the right to terminate a pregnancy, anyway.

We can argue about the definition of a “baby” all day long, but at 6 weeks it’s barely more than a zygote. It’s a controversial question, but viability outside the mother’s womb is probably the best standard.


----------



## FarCentrist (Sep 6, 2021)

Instead of worrying about whether abortion should be legal or illegal or whether a fetus is human or not, why don't women just practice safe sex and choose better responsible boyfriends to get fucked by? 

At this point, I can only assume 1 or 2 things

1) women are overgrown children who aren't mentally capable of anything therefore they don't deserve voting rights
2) women consciously or subconsciously get a power trip or sexually aroused by killing babies


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 6, 2021)

KooksandFreaks said:


> The Texas law is still in place, that’s how. Maybe the powers that be in the Lone Star state should be more concerned with keeping the power on.



Sick burn, they need some ice for that one--oh wait.



KooksandFreaks said:


> And, btw, guns laws have become increasingly more lenient and less restrictive in recent years.


Irrelevant and retarded.



KooksandFreaks said:


> Compare that to the availability of abortions in certain states and you might discover a disparity. Kind of retarded to liken the right to own a gun with the right to terminate a pregnancy, anyway.


It isn't my problem if you have trouble understanding analogy and how the levels of laws work. Hell, I'm more impressed someone living upside shows more knowledge than yourself. 



KooksandFreaks said:


> We can argue about the definition of a “baby” all day long, but at 6 weeks it’s barely more than a zygote. It’s a controversial question, but viability outside the mother’s womb is probably the best standard.


Baby isn't the problem or the argument. The law is based solely off the legal definition of pregnancy (which is when an egg is fertilized), to when the developing fetus has a heart beat. Defining when a baby is or isn't gets people nowhere, which is why they used their language and very clear definitions within the bill. Don't believe me, do your own research. Bill's name is SB8 and available on the Texas House and Senate legislature.


----------



## KooksandFreaks (Sep 6, 2021)

Don’t get your back up. I like Texas.

People from all over the world visit to shoot exotic guns. Although, they probably shouldn’t try to get an abortion there. : )


----------



## Dyn (Sep 6, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:
			
		

> California does do it over firearms right now


No they don't. Nobody has ever done anything like this before. I don't think you understand the problem with how this bill works. It's giving standing to uninvolved citizens to sue people for doing something the state government isn't legally allowed to prohibit. This isn't like an abortion ban, or abortion clinic regulations, or even the gun manufacturer lawsuits, it's an entirely new concept that allows the government to completely sidestep your constitutional rights by encouraging random people to bombard you with meritless lawsuits and waiving their costs.


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 6, 2021)

Dyn said:


> No they don't. Nobody has ever done anything like this before. I don't think you understand the problem with how this bill works. It's giving standing to uninvolved citizens to sue people for doing something the state government isn't legally allowed to prohibit. This isn't like an abortion ban, or abortion clinic regulations, or even the gun manufacturer lawsuits, it's an entirely new concept that allows the government to completely sidestep your constitutional rights by encouraging random people to bombard you with meritless lawsuits and waiving their costs.


I had a reply, I'm not sure if it still is here. If it is, disregard, I understand what you mean aside from the abortion stuff. The law itself is very odd, I could potentially get sued for saying folks can go outside of the state to get an abortion.


----------



## Dyn (Sep 6, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:


> I had a reply, I'm not sure if it still is here. If it is, disregard, I understand what you mean aside from the abortion stuff. The law itself is very odd, I could potentially get sued for saying folks can go outside of the state to get an abortion.


Yeah, the issue with this bill has nothing to do with pro-life vs pro-choice, or fetal heartbeats, or when life begins, or roe vs wade, or should there be rape/incest exemptions, or anything else that comes up in a normal abortion bill. 

The problem is that a government figured out a way to crowdsource civil rights violations.


----------



## Absurdist Laughter (Sep 6, 2021)

Dyn said:


> Yeah, the issue with this bill has nothing to do with pro-life vs pro-choice, or fetal heartbeats, or when life begins, or roe vs wade, or should there be rape/incest exemptions, or anything else that comes up in a normal abortion bill.
> 
> The problem is that a government figured out a way to crowdsource civil rights violations.


It's a pickle, that's for certain. However, if it really allows folks outside of the state to sue others in the state without repercussions (even if they lose); Houston, we got a problem. Hmm, well, I hope it is just a poison pill and trap and gets dropped in the higher courts. As it stands, I'm apposed to the bill itself but not for the same reasons as others. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Techpriest (Sep 6, 2021)

Absurdist Laughter said:


> It's a pickle, that's for certain. However, if it really allows folks outside of the state to sue others in the state without repercussions (even if they lose); Houston, we got a problem. Hmm, well, I hope it is just a poison pill and trap and gets dropped in the higher courts. As it stands, I'm apposed to the bill itself but not for the same reasons as others. Thanks for the help.


That's exactly what it does. There is no method for those sued under this law to recoup costs of litigation if they win; it's also going to be and already is being used against groups from out of state that've done abortions in the past. Merely TALKING about having an abortion as a possibility can constitute assistance, even if it's a generic website from out of state. So they can be sued for 'assisting' Texas women in having an abortion. It's fucking disgusting as a law and the Supreme Court dodging ruling on it because of procedural technicalities is really damn dumb.


----------



## ReturnedHermit (Sep 6, 2021)

Dyn said:


> No they don't. Nobody has ever done anything like this before. I don't think you understand the problem with how this bill works. It's giving standing to uninvolved citizens to sue people for doing something the state government isn't legally allowed to prohibit. This isn't like an abortion ban, or abortion clinic regulations, or even the gun manufacturer lawsuits, it's an entirely new concept that allows the government to completely sidestep your constitutional rights by encouraging random people to bombard you with meritless lawsuits and waiving their costs.


Haven't we already been doing that? 
There is plenty of merit to these lawsuits. Being near people who are about to, or regularly engage in, child murder - is extremely stressful and can be damaging to one's mental health n a variety of ways. Consider what is required to define a hostile work environment: persistent issues causing a person's work environment to be uncomfortable or difficult to work in due to illegal discrimination. Now replace discrimination with "ending of a human life" and work environment with "community." People have a right to live and work in a place that is safe from harm. In another way of speaking, we can gradually create a new protected class of people who are defined as "those appalled by the death of unborn babies." 

Much the same way living next to a sex offender is cause for concern, living next to an abortionist is cause for alarm. The sex offender is assigned to a registry for past actions, while the abortionist is constantly working to expand their operations. In simple terms, the former represents at least one criminal datapoint, while the latter implies continuous action by an organized group  that threatens loss of life. Given the enormous resources and sophistication of these groups, it is only fair that individuals be empowered to fight back against them. Suing the abortionist is just a way of getting them to rat out the higher ups in the organization who are doing the real crime here: advertising medical services to children. 

This is a wonderful day for America. Laws are now learning from and incorporating Cloud-based technologies. Karens now have a reason to follow people around with their cellphones, and can even make it a full-time job. The Bipartisan aspects are my favorite, removing law enforcement functions from the government (defund the police) and giving them to the citizens (community policing) is nice to see. From a cultural perspective I consider it a huge win. A nice combination of a bounty system (Texas culture) and a punitive fine (Anglo culture). Going forward, I would like to see all complaints made by Americans come with the weight of a lawsuit. 

Also there is a neat little trap set by this law where if someone attempting to get an abortion *does not* get the abortion because of a lawsuit shutting down a clinic, the person would then be suing another person. They take it to court, or maybe even form a class with other people who didn't get their abortions. That case will take place in time, so either the plaintiff has a baby with them or they don't. If they don't, then access to services was not denied. If they do though... they pretty much win by default. Which is cool, because if the costs are pretty low, you are sort of paying other people to have kids. Sort of a lawsuit-father or mother. "If I hadn't sued your mom's abortion clinic into the ground, then lost 30 grand when she sued me, you wouldn't even be here you little shit!" This is a wonderful opportunity for the family unit to evolve and change in new and exciting ways. Anyone who disagrees with legislation like this is simply fun-averse.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (Sep 6, 2021)

“Oh no, I have to suffer the consequences of my own terrible choices! How cruel!” ~Some Slut In Texas


----------



## Not a fake name (Sep 6, 2021)

Gingervitis said:


> There is one scenario (that I can remember) that allows you to cut in line to the Supreme Court, and its not this. If there is a lawsuit between two or more state governments, the Supreme Court is the first and last court to hear the lawsuit out. They’re not allowed to reject the case either, for obvious reasons.


In theory, but Texas tried this over the election and the scotus dismissed it without hearing anything.


----------



## Gingervitis (Sep 7, 2021)

Not a fake name said:


> In theory, but Texas tried this over the election and the scotus dismissed it without hearing anything.


That was because it lacked standing. Regardless of what you think of the rigged election, Texas really has no right to sue another state over their election method. I assume a lawsuit would have to come from within the state. For a lawsuit between states to have standing, it would (to my best understanding) have to directly affect the plaintiff (ie a border dispute, or if Texas made getting abortions outside Texas a crime)


----------



## Getting tard comed (Sep 8, 2021)

Dyn said:


> Yeah, the issue with this bill has nothing to do with pro-life vs pro-choice, or fetal heartbeats, or when life begins, or roe vs wade, or should there be rape/incest exemptions, or anything else that comes up in a normal abortion bill.
> 
> The problem is that a government figured out a way to crowdsource civil rights violations.


I'd have a bigger problem with this if this was the first time this was done. The federal goverment has been doing this for decades to states by offering incentives for them to pass certain laws they want passed but can't on a federal level.(ex. drinking age, speed limits.) This is also a terrible time in history to complain about this concept when, again, the federal government and political parties are working with private companies to stifle the first amendment via social media companies and putting pressure on private companies to enforce a vaccine mandate on people because the feds nor states can do that legally, yet. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and I cannot be upset with republicans in Texas finally nutting up and playing by the actual rules of the game. I prefer citizens having a say in these types of social pressures more so than companies anyway. These are the rules of the game. Texas decided they were actually going to play.


----------

