The Texas Abortion Decision Is Bad For Everyone ( This is not abortion debate)

[Paradox.79]

This is not debating abortion this debating the way this law was put into place

 

[Paradox.79]

Something I have seen repeatedly buy certain political groups is the complete destruction of the constitution. If Trump had pulled of his stunt during the election...I believe Mike Pence would have been hanged. I believe Donald Trump would have crowned himself King of America

 

[Sketcher]

My understanding of this law is that it enables women to sue abortion providers if the abortion took place after six months of fetal development.

Seems to me that many such cases would rely on retroactively withdrawing consent after the deed is done.

This principle has been noted as legitimate by feminist voices in other situations. Specifically, when women seem to retroactively withdraw consent to a sexual encounter, that consent is assumed to have never really been there because coercion and abuse can bully a woman into just going along with it. Now, with abortion, there are many abortions that are not the woman's choice - she's strongarmed into it by an abusive parent or partner. Or, perhaps it was her choice but the clinic itself was shadier than she anticipated and made the experience traumatic for her. Those are cases of abuse too. When there's abuse, why shouldn't a woman be able to sue?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

This is not debating abortion this debating the way this law was put into place

The law is good for the unborn who now have a chance to live.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

This is not debating abortion this debating the way this law was put into place

The law is good for the unborn who now have a chance to live.

 

[Paradox.79]

The law is good for the unborn who now have a chance to live.

Yeah except it does not take into account the various legitimate reason for a abortion. There are medical reason, ignore rape and incest if you want. There are woman who can not carry to term. The point of the law is it circumvents the constitution. Its like what Trump did...only and fool denies he was not trying for a coup. When the majority of people support a law, a smaller group tries to use dirty trick to overturn the law...that little bit closer from us being a democracy and turning into a dictatorship. Its cheap stunt and it can be used in other ways not involving abortion.

 

[Paradox.79]

My understanding of this law is that it enables women to sue abortion providers if the abortion took place after six months of fetal development.

Seems to me that many such cases would rely on retroactively withdrawing consent after the deed is done.

This principle has been noted as legitimate by feminist voices in other situations. Specifically, when women seem to retroactively withdraw consent to a sexual encounter, that consent is assumed to have never really been there because coercion and abuse can bully a woman into just going along with it. Now, with abortion, there are many abortions that are not the woman's choice - she's strongarmed into it by an abusive parent or partner. Or, perhaps it was her choice but the clinic itself was shadier than she anticipated and made the experience traumatic for her. Those are cases of abuse too. When there's abuse, why shouldn't a woman be able to sue?

Your right to agree...but ignore rape and incest, there are legitimate medical reasons for one...the fetus is not viable...the mother can not carry without dying, and many Christians especially in Texas it seem does not want to acknowledge that. And the thing is that law could be used in other ways...republicans and democrats seem have no problem destroying our constitution to get there agenda about. Only a food does not think Trump was not trying to pull of a coup. More than one person said trump would have gotten a bullet if he had managed it.

 

[hedrick]

The problem I see is that anyone can sue, so one abortion could result in 300,000,000 cases. Normally you can only sue if you are involved, which limits things, but this law abolishes that kind of limitation. It also eliminates the ability to get attorney fees if you are found not responsible. So you could bankrupt someone you don’t like, as long as someone is prepared to fund the prosecution. Imagine Colorado passing such a law for failing to serve LGBT customers. This invites using the law for persecution. If it passes constitutional review, there’s no reason to think it will be limited to abortion or to conservative states.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem I see is that anyone can sue, so one abortion could result in 300,000,000 cases. Normally you can only sue if you are involved, which limits things, but this law abolishes that kind of limitation. It also eliminates the ability to get attorney fees if you are found not responsible. So you could bankrupt someone you don’t like, as long as someone is prepared to fund the prosecution. Imagine Colorado passing such a law for failing to serve LGBT customers. This invites using the law for persecution. If it passes constitutional review, there’s no reason to think it will be limited to abortion or to conservative states.

It is likely to not stand time well.

 

[hedrick]

It is likely to not stand time well.

My thought is someone needs to get together a group of people to sue Gov Abbott 1000 times. I’d be willing to pay for one. I believe anyone in the US can file one of these suits.

Actually not Abbott. He would have the State represent him. Pick a pastor who is opposed to sex education and sue him for encouraging abortion. The law also prohibits picking a forum convenient to the defendant so you'd distribute the suits across every county in Texas.

 

[SkyWriting]

My thought is someone needs to get together a group of people to sue Gov Abbott 1000 times. I’d be willing to pay for one.

It's just a fact that such drastic changes don't hold up well. It's just a nonpartisan fact. It may be possible for one village to implement such changes and I encourage villages to push the limits as far as they legally can, even if I don't agree with the changes.

 

[hedrick]

It's just a fact that such drastic changes don't hold up well. It's just a nonpartisan fact.

I think we're at the point where some state legislatures and courts are unwilling to be reasonable. I'm not as optimistic as you are. The US Supreme Court is now originalist. Unless the text of the constitution prohibits this kind of abuse they're OK with it. Since nobody thought of it before, there's no expllcit prohibition.

I think the only way to stop it would be to use it for obviously abusive purposes such as I suggest. However if the court system is sufficiently biased, they will throw out harassment except for unpopular victims.

 

[Paradox.79]

I think we're at the point where some state legislatures and courts are unwilling to be reasonable. I'm not as optimistic as you are. The US Supreme Court is now originalist. Unless the text of the constitution prohibits this kind of abuse they're OK with it. Since nobody thought of it before, there's no expllcit prohibition.

I think the only way to stop it would be to use it for obviously abusive purposes such as I suggest. However if the court system is sufficiently biased, they will throw out harassment except for unpopular victims.

Ive seen both republican and democrat abuse the constitution. But I see a willingness to ignore the constitution to get a agenda across from extremist republican's ( and I am not saying all republicans) that are just as dangerous as extremist democrat both seem to be willing to turn our country into a dictatorship to get there agenda across.

 

[hedrick]

Ive seen both republican and democrat abuse the constitution. But I see a willingness to ignore the constitution to get a agenda across from extremist republican's ( and I am not saying all republicans) that are just as dangerous as extremist democrat both seem to be willing to turn our country into a dictatorship to get there agenda across.

I should note that I consistently voted Republican until the last few elections. My problem is that the extreme you refer to has taken over the party.

 

[Sketcher]

Your right to agree...but ignore rape and incest, there are legitimate medical reasons for one...the fetus is not viable...the mother can not carry without dying, and many Christians especially in Texas it seem does not want to acknowledge that.

What I'm talking about is the right to sue based on retroactively withdrawn consent. This basis is used to bring criminal complaints after questionable sexual encounters, and defended by feminists when that happens. Yet, this same basis is somehow horrible when it's suing abortion providers all of a sudden? Even though abuse of women does happen at abortion clinics?

And the thing is that law could be used in other ways...republicans and democrats seem have no problem destroying our constitution to get there agenda about.

How does this law destroy the Constitution? As a lover of the Constitution myself, I legitimately want to know.

 

[tz620q]

Your right to agree...but ignore rape and incest, there are legitimate medical reasons for one...the fetus is not viable...the mother can not carry without dying, and many Christians especially in Texas it seem does not want to acknowledge that. And the thing is that law could be used in other ways...republicans and democrats seem have no problem destroying our constitution to get there agenda about. Only a food does not think Trump was not trying to pull of a coup. More than one person said trump would have gotten a bullet if he had managed it.

If you read the wording of the law, you will see that there is an exception if the doctor deemed the woman's health at risk.

 

[Arcangl86]

The problem I see is that anyone can sue, so one abortion could result in 300,000,000 cases. Normally you can only sue if you are involved, which limits things, but this law abolishes that kind of limitation. It also eliminates the ability to get attorney fees if you are found not responsible. So you could bankrupt someone you don’t like, as long as someone is prepared to fund the prosecution. Imagine Colorado passing such a law for failing to serve LGBT customers. This invites using the law for persecution. If it passes constitutional review, there’s no reason to think it will be limited to abortion or to conservative states.

Sure there is. The SCOTUS would find some way to say "This law is different!" if a similar law is passed involving something else.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The law is good for the unborn who now have a chance to live.

No because it puts obstetricians out of helping women have babies as they'll face
frivolous lawsuits from every self-righteous person who misunderstands what took
place in the delivery room.

 

[Brihaha]

Rooster Cogburn is readying his posse now!
Haha. Just kidding, tho it ain't far from true. I don't think our Supreme Court ruled on the merits of the law. They simply declined to enforce a stay on implementation.

 

[Paradox.79]

If you read the wording of the law, you will see that there is an exception if the doctor deemed the woman's health at risk.

Yes and it still be can abused...all it takes is someone to use that law to attack someone they do not like. How long till someone is ticked at there neighbor or ex and uses that law. As the defendant in the trial you have pay all the fines and lawyer bills if you lose...if you win you still have to pay the lawyer fees which can go into the thousands. What happens when they make another law based after it to go after another issue they have a problem with.