Texas v abortion

[TheMysteriousGX]

We've got a 6-3 Supreme Court and relying on them is relying on having two of the six not being partisan political agents. I'm not hopeful

But like the Ye Olde Sodomy Laws or the brand spanking new Stand Your Ground Laws, the only people being hurt by them are going to be people that conservatives in charge *want* to hurt

Told you

Via "shadow docket" too. Nobody even had to show up and argue for it. Fucking cowards

 

[McElroy]

And I'm sure they do. But even if they don't neither the mom nor future infant benefits from the outcome if we just decide 'you made your bed, now sleep in it'.

Yeah, I'd have much more respect for pro-life people if they also wanted to make completely sure that everyone has an easy (and for young people, free) access to contraceptives. But y'know, 'press x to doubt'.

I'm not advocating a ban on late term abortions in any way (unless non consensual obviously). I'm saying that if we take the unlikely scenario of someone suffering from an unwanted pregnancy waiting 7 or 8 months to abort it I would raise an eyebrow.

Also in general I find you've thought this out and which is nice to see (in the sea of "it's just a lump of cells and literally cancerous growth!!"), because it's not uncommon for secular philosophers to lean on abortion being sometimes necessary but always unfortunate. Thus I think it's good to be able to make an effective argument. Furthermore I'd argue it's almost necessary for the woman to be insane or a total scumbag to "just decide" to get a late-term abortion. Like, I wouldn't just raise an eyebrow I'd tell them, - indirectly of course - the next (late-term abortion "just because") comes with a free sterilization. Luckily these people only exist in pro-lifers' nightmares.

The fate of an unborn child doesn't hang on a coin tossed in the air. What matters is the emotional work the pregnant woman puts in. If it's 5-6 months working towards carrying it to term and then a 180, something is wrong.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

A reminder that Trump appointed three Supreme Court judges who were against abortion.

I don't want to hear any American saying "elections don't matter" ever again.

 

[Hades]

So an important aspect of the abortion ban is to emply citizens as bounty hunters who must detect ''law breakers'' in exchange for a big fat check from the government.

Geeh, what could possibly go wrong here?

 

[Worgen]

So an important aspect of the abortion ban is to emply citizens as bounty hunters who must detect ''law breakers'' in exchange for a big fat check from the government.

Geeh, what could possibly go wrong here?

Its not from the government right? Its a suit against an individual, I think.

 

[SilentPony]

Its not from the government right? Its a suit against an individual, I think.

I think its two separate laws. One is a bounty system where people report others to the Government, and then another law allows individuals to sue others on behalf of the aborted fetus.

 

[Worgen]

I think its two separate laws. One is a bounty system where people report others to the Government, and then another law allows individuals to sue others on behalf of the aborted fetus.

Can you find a site with the actual wording or punishments and such? I've looked around and haven't been able to find anything that definitively answers what the law is and what the punishment is. It sounds like there is no government enforcement and that it just widely opens up liability for anyone who assists in almost anyway, someone getting an abortion after 6 weeks to be able to be sued for at least $10k and that the person or group suing them has no responsibility for defense costs if they fail to win.

 

[Seanchaidh]

A reminder that Trump appointed three Supreme Court judges who were against abortion.

I don't want to hear any American saying "elections don't matter" ever again.

Interestingly,

Obama just let the Republicans deny him an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted Hillary Clinton to appoint her replacement, and so failed to retire (and then died with Trump in office).

As we can see, the Democrats really treat protecting the rights of women via the Supreme Court with the utmost seriousness and not just as a cudgel to browbeat people into voting for them.

 

[SilentPony]

Can you find a site with the actual wording or punishments and such? I've looked around and haven't been able to find anything that definitively answers what the law is and what the punishment is. It sounds like there is no government enforcement and that it just widely opens up liability for anyone who assists in almost anyway, someone getting an abortion after 6 weeks to be able to be sued for at least $10k and that the person or group suing them has no responsibility for defense costs if they fail to win.

Okay its wordy, but this is directly from Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor's dissent:

Spoiler

In May 2021, the Texas legislature enacted SB8 (the act). The act, which took effect statewide at midnight on 1 September, makes it unlawful for physicians to perform abortions if they either detect cardiac activity in an embryo or fail to perform a test to detect such activity. This equates to a near-categorical ban on abortions beginning six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, before many women realize they are pregnant, and months before fetal viability. According to the applicants, who are abortion providers and advocates in Texas, the act immediately prohibits care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients and will force many abortion clinics to close.

The act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents. See, e.g., June Medical Servs LLC v Russo, 591 US ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C J, concurring in judgment) (slip op, at 5) (explaining that “the state may not impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion” of a “nonviable fetus” (citing Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted)). The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: no federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law.

The Texas legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the state could not. The act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion in violation of the act, “aids or abets” such an abortion (including by paying for it) regardless of whether they know the abortion is prohibited under the act, or even intends to engage in such conduct. Courts are required to enjoin the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000 in “statutory damages” for each forbidden abortion performed or aided by the defendant. In effect, the Texas legislature has deputized the state’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures.

 

[happyninja42]

I suppose that's fair. I just feel like people who are very set on not getting pregnant should be taking other precautions against it right, pills, patches, condoms, whatever.

I'm okay with it so long as abortion is treated like a last resort.

They would LOVE to do that. However the fucking conservative, religious shitbags, actively block the various programs that would PROVIDE them with those very forms of contraceptives, sex education, support systems, to help them avoid the situation in the first place. So they are fucking over the problem from both sides.

 

[Worgen]

Okay its wordy, but this is directly from Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor's dissent:

Spoiler

In May 2021, the Texas legislature enacted SB8 (the act). The act, which took effect statewide at midnight on 1 September, makes it unlawful for physicians to perform abortions if they either detect cardiac activity in an embryo or fail to perform a test to detect such activity. This equates to a near-categorical ban on abortions beginning six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, before many women realize they are pregnant, and months before fetal viability. According to the applicants, who are abortion providers and advocates in Texas, the act immediately prohibits care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients and will force many abortion clinics to close.

The act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents. See, e.g., June Medical Servs LLC v Russo, 591 US ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C J, concurring in judgment) (slip op, at 5) (explaining that “the state may not impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion” of a “nonviable fetus” (citing Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted)). The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: no federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law.

The Texas legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the state could not. The act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion in violation of the act, “aids or abets” such an abortion (including by paying for it) regardless of whether they know the abortion is prohibited under the act, or even intends to engage in such conduct. Courts are required to enjoin the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000 in “statutory damages” for each forbidden abortion performed or aided by the defendant. In effect, the Texas legislature has deputized the state’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures.

Hmm, still can't tell if the <=$10k is paid by the state or the person, or what happens for falsely accusing someone.

Interestingly,

Obama just let the Republicans deny him an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted Hillary Clinton to appoint her replacement, and so failed to retire (and then died with Trump in office).

As we can see, the Democrats really treat protecting the rights of women via the Supreme Court with the utmost seriousness and not just as a cudgel to browbeat people into voting for them.

Its not 'interesting' if its just wrong. The only way he could have forced a pick was if the democratic senate did the nuclear option, before that he only had 2 years where he could have gotten through justices 2008 to 2010 and he still would have needed every democrat, both independents and one republican to do it. After that the democrats only had a slim majority, to get past the 60 vote threshold for appointing a justice they would have needed even more republicans to agree and mitch the turtle would have done everything he could to just sit on any vacancies, which we saw him do.

 

[happyninja42]

Hmm, still can't tell if the <=$10k is paid by the state or the person, or what happens for falsely accusing someone.


Its not 'interesting' if its just wrong. The only way he could have forced a pick was if the democratic senate did the nuclear option, before that he only had 2 years where he could have gotten through justices 2008 to 2010 and he still would have needed every democrat, both independents and one republican to do it. After that the democrats only had a slim majority, to get past the 60 vote threshold for appointing a justice they would have needed even more republicans to agree and mitch the turtle would have done everything he could to just sit on any vacancies, which we saw him do.

Yeah it's been pretty well established, that the GOP playbook consists of obstruct and delay EVERYTHING a democrat puts forward, and then steamroll and push through everything a conservative puts forward while the dems can't do anything about it. Consolidate their power, neuter everyone else's power, and push through policies and laws that help us keep power, and fuck things like fairness and rule of law.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Hmm, still can't tell if the <=$10k is paid by the state or the person, or what happens for falsely accusing someone.

Statutory Damages are paid out by the defendant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-abortion-lawsuits/

But S.B. 8’s malice does not stop there. Once abortion providers and supporters are dragged into state courts, S.B. 8 then changes the courthouse rules to make these lawsuits as costly and burdensome as possible. For instance, S.B. 8 allows suits to be brought in any of Texas’s 254 counties and bars the courts from transferring the case to a more appropriate location. A physician who provides abortions in El Paso, for example, might have to fly across the state to Houston to defend themselves against an ideologue or stranger looking to force them to stop. If the vigilante prevails, they get their costs and attorney’s fees covered — but if abortion providers and assisters successfully defend themselves, they have to swallow all of their litigation costs. The law also allows abortion providers to be sued multiple times over a single abortion, while prohibiting them from defending on the ground that another court already found in their favor.

 

[Worgen]

Yeah it's been pretty well established, that the GOP playbook consists of obstruct and delay EVERYTHING a democrat puts forward, and then steamroll and push through everything a conservative puts forward while the dems can't do anything about it. Consolidate their power, neuter everyone else's power, and push through policies and laws that help us keep power, and fuck things like fairness and rule of law.

They really are playing politics on easy mode. If your goal when your elected to government is to limit government as much as you can, it really is very easy to govern. The hard part is deciding which chair to sit in while you eat all the cheese and crackers.

 

[Worgen]

Statutory Damages are paid out by the defendant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-abortion-lawsuits/

Ok, I thought so. This seems like its just super ripe for abuse out the ass. I'm not just talking about those anti-abortion idiots either, I mean if you want to just troll people with lawsuits it sounds like it would be pretty easy to do with no real risk. In fact, I'll bet you could pretty easily get the anti-abortion idiots in court a lot since you already have evidence of them hanging around abortion clinics, who is to say they aren't getting late term abortions and just using protesting as a cover. I'll take my $10k now.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ok, I thought so. This seems like its just super ripe for abuse out the ass. I'm not just talking about those anti-abortion idiots either, I mean if you want to just troll people with lawsuits it sounds like it would be pretty easy to do with no real risk. In fact, I'll bet you could pretty easily get the anti-abortion idiots in court a lot since you already have evidence of them hanging around abortion clinics, who is to say they aren't getting late term abortions and just using protesting as a cover. I'll take my $10k now.

A younger me would say "if the Democrats had any stones at all, apply this kind of law to guns and see how fast it becomes unconstitutional", but the GOP has already proven that rules are for other people and being shamed by hypocrisy is for the weak, so it wouldn't help

 

[CriticalGaming]

They would LOVE to do that. However the fucking conservative, religious shitbags, actively block the various programs that would PROVIDE them with those very forms of contraceptives, sex education, support systems, to help them avoid the situation in the first place. So they are fucking over the problem from both sides.

What systems of support out of curiosity? I'm legit asking.

Like do we need sex classes to tell people that babies happen when you cum inside girls? Is that not clear to people?

Should we expect a system that just mails out free condoms to people because they can't figure they should use them? When I was in high school several girls got knocked up because the dudes didn't WANT to wear the condoms. It had nothing to do with how difficult it was to get ahold of them.

Like you can teach people about safe sex all you want, but so long as the natural way feels better people will do it that way.

Then of course there is religion teaching girls that the pill is a fucking sin which is another stupid thing religion does.

You know what? Now that i think about it.....can we ban religion? I think that would work out better for everyone.

 

[SilentPony]

A younger me would say "if the Democrats had any stones at all, apply this kind of law to guns and see how fast it becomes unconstitutional", but the GOP has already proven that rules are for other people and being shamed by hypocrisy is for the weak, so it wouldn't help

Not just that, simply that laws are for other people. Trump and his enablers openly violated constitutional law, and just said "You and what army?" and turns out the courts don't have an army.
If you made a law that legalizes abortion nation wide, Texas and Alabama would still pass laws saying its illegal, the Supreme Court would knock it down, Governors would say go scratch, its still law and we're enforcing it. And then what? Call Dog the Bounty Hunter?
The GOP is a post Law and post United States party.

 

[Worgen]

A younger me would say "if the Democrats had any stones at all, apply this kind of law to guns and see how fast it becomes unconstitutional", but the GOP has already proven that rules are for other people and being shamed by hypocrisy is for the weak, so it wouldn't help

That's the thing, I can totally see Cali or New York doing that since the enforcement of this bill is ripe for abuse. I'm not even talking about the abortion angle, being able to make any stupid law you want so long as its just citizens enforcing it, that's just bad shit man.

 

[Buyetyen]

What systems of support out of curiosity? I'm legit asking.

Like do we need sex classes to tell people that babies happen when you cum inside girls? Is that not clear to people?

Should we expect a system that just mails out free condoms to people because they can't figure they should use them? When I was in high school several girls got knocked up because the dudes didn't WANT to wear the condoms. It had nothing to do with how difficult it was to get ahold of them.

Like you can teach people about safe sex all you want, but so long as the natural way feels better people will do it that way.

Then of course there is religion teaching girls that the pill is a fucking sin which is another stupid thing religion does.

You know what? Now that i think about it.....can we ban religion? I think that would work out better for everyone.

In order:

Yes
No
Don't see why not
Do you really think banning religion is an easier solution than sex ed?