The Structure of Texas' New Abortion Law is Deeply Concerning - Not an Abortion Debate

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not as unsettling as mass infanticide.

 

[Linako 2.0]

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]

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.

 

[melty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!