Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
Sure, agree, but is that really the exclusive mechanism that they're counting on to leverage this law?

Edit: Is the intent that it IS the father/friends who would sue? Or that they pass that information to some other party who then sues? Not a lawyer here, but isn't that, like, hearsay or something? How does that work?

I heard it from a friend who /
heard it from a friend who /
heard it from another you been abortin' around...
Click to expand...
It could be a father or friends but from what I’ve read it can literally be anyone, so if an anti-abortion group is standing outside an abortion clinic, they could essentially stalk anyone they seen entering and then sue the clinic for preforming an abortion claiming that the abortion took place greater than 6 weeks into the pregnancy (whether it had or not) the Clinic would have to prove to t didn’t break the law to avoid paying the penalty (minimum $10k reward). The frivolousness of the law suits is kind of the point.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Slight mis-characterization.

I'm just spitballing here based on all the lawyer shows I've ever seen, but how is the burden of proof on the respondent and not on the complainant here? An accusation of an abortion is not proof that an abortion has occurred.

Edit: I mean I totally get that the point is really just deterrence for people who don't want to get tied up in legal proceedings in the first place. I'm just trying to understand how this is actionable in theory.
Click to expand...

the actionability of it is secondary to the primary goal which is to intimidate providers into closing up shop. but sinceyou ask how, here you go: a year into dating, girl A is *late* and after discussing it it with Boyfriend B, discovers he's so very prolife and wants to be a daddy no matter what. For Reasons, she doesn't want to have a baby (maybe not now, maybe not with this dude, whatever) and goes off and schedules an abortion. Since they're not married, he doesn't have to show up as the husband and sign off on it*, she calls him and breaks up, gets her reproductive shit taken care of and carries on with her life. He turns her in and sues for the loss of "his baby".

I wll bet you a shiny penny that there's going to be a huge increase in "oh i had a miscarriage and didn't tell anyone, i would never abort, that's illegalllllll" defenses to this bullshit.

* I know this is the case with sterilization procedures in many states, I assume texas is at the forefront of condescending paternalist sexism here, as in other areas.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I'm just spitballing here based on all the lawyer shows I've ever seen, but how is the burden of proof on the respondent and not on the complainant here? An accusation of an abortion is not proof that an abortion has occurred.
Click to expand...
That is why the law is so nefariousness but also likely to be tossed out. These are not criminal lawsuits they are civil. Civil suits are a different beast. There are tons of frivolous civil lawsuits brought about regularly. Usually though one side would have to have standing to sue. What this law does is give everyone a right to sue essentially saying they are suing on behalf of the unborn in what amounts to a wrongful death suit. Once someone finally does get sued it will likely progress through the courts (largely based on ideology) until it get to the SC. Like I said over in GNG profile post. I don’t think the SC would likely want to set that precedent being that blue states could likely use this mechanism to to bypass laws they aren’t happy with. There is a much more “boilerplate” essentially abortion ban from a Mississippi law that is set to be ruled on by the SCOTUS soon. I think it’s much more likely that you could see the hard right majority wing of the court uphold that law and essentially make it legal to ban abortion at the state level.

In the short term the Texas bill is bad for Texans but I think will ultimately be overturned but the court can’t start litigation until someone is sued which is why it’s allowed to go into effect initially.

The Mississippi bill since it is an actual law has already been granted a stay while the litigation progresses but it’s this case that seem much more likely to cause more damage to a woman’s right to choose. Lots of states have already passed “trigger bills” that would do the same thing that the MS bill does if the state upholds the law.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Yeah exactly, I mean that's the exact conclusion I was drawing as well. In order to prove that the abortion was performed at >6 weeks, one must prove that an abortion occurred, no? What is a third party's standing to require disclosure of that medical care?
Click to expand...
The bill eliminates standing. The fact that these frivolous suits make it so clinics are afraid preform to preform ANY services in for fear of being sued into oblivion even if they end up winning the suit.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I think it’s much more likely that you could see the hard right majority wing of the court uphold that law and essentially make it legal to ban abortion at the state level.
Click to expand...

follow-up step: ban travel (or, more likely, "transportation") for the purpose of abortion. So you, Jane Q Taxpayer couldn't be sued/fined/arrested for going to your abortion in Colorado, but whoever drove or flew you could.

quasi-related aside: Peru (among other very-catholic-south-american countries) banned abortion, but Bolivia had legalized it, so for many years "going to Bolivia" was local peruvian slang for getting an abortion. If such a travel ban gets enacted along with more state-level bans, expect something similar here. As with other laws, the poor will feel it hardest.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
My frustration is in trying to understand the good faith legal theory behind it when none exists.
Click to expand...
this is why i find the left (in general and democrats specifically) lack of guile and shamelessness in response to be so mind-numbingly frustrating: no one on the right even pretends this is in good faith (except fox news, whose let's-lie-to-grandma model is centered on making the insane seem normal).

all it takes is one shameless motherfucker to just start proposing crazy shit and see what sticks. outlaw automatic weapons except in the cases of gay marriage. mandatory single-payer medicare for anyone making under 300k. tax rebates for minority business owners at double corporate tax rates. legalize growing marijuana for personal use. religious education in public schools is OK but must include equal representation for all religions in the jurisdiction.

no one on the left has the sheer shamelessness of McConnell or graham or even cruz and gaetz -- props to AOC who knows how to work the media machine and pelosi who is shrewd as fuck -- and the left direly, direly needs it. Just imagine Jesse Ventura advocating for just ludicrous crazy things and then the turnaround: "well Jesse," says AOC, "Maybe we don't need to make any weapons illegal -- here's my plan to make all firearms legal, provided you have full insurance coverage."
 
In addition to being sued this bill also works as a deterrence because providers would be on the hook for their own legal defence fees as well.

This whole thing is meant to make to make it too expensive for providers to want to continue providing abortions.

I don't think the SCOTUS would uphold this law if it reaches them, but they might skirt around setting a precedents by not taking on the case when it reaches them.

This would allow them to keep this law in place but rule against any law the left makes to side step around precedents. It's a tricky slope.
 
Mitch McConnell stated yesterday that there would not be an impeachment of President Biden over the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan because democrats control the house. If Biden was a republican they probably would impeach him over this.

Therefore since Biden will not be removed from office, voters will need to make their voices heard at the ballot. That is how America will have to hold Biden accountable.
 
yukbon said:
My father and I never talked about his time in Vietnam -- all the stories I have about him in the war are from my mother and even those are scant on details and leave you to ask more questions ("everyone got stoned except him and his friend who were on guard duty and that was the night the Tet offensive happened and everyone died except the handful that weren't messed up on drugs") -- but it was obviously a thing that indelibly changed him as a young man, in a way that echoed even into his old age.

I played Alice In Chains' "Rooster" -- a song explicitly about a kid's dad going to Vietnam -- and he mocked it mercilessly ("they're gonna kill the rooster?! gimme a fuckin' break!"). It was a rare moment when he let his guard down about his time in the military, e.g.: when I was a high school senior and the army recruiter called and he tore into the dude and told him he'd break my fingers before letting me enlist and if you call again I Am Going To Find You and We Are Going To Have A Talk You Sonofabitch quote unquote. Until then he'd been noncommitally positive-ish about his time in the military. Then I got an earful until I explained that the recruiters call all the boys in public schools who turn 18, no dad, really I didn't try to sign up.

I played him "And the band played waltzing Matilda" once, in his office. I'd left my guitar in there by accident and wound up fucking around on his computer while he did some of his work and it struck me to do it. We talked about anzac day and gallipoli. We still didn't talk about vietnam but he did say he liked the song. It kills me how much the American right falls over itself with faux hero-worship for the military and in all practical matters, treat them like so much cannon fodder.
Click to expand...
My uncle was a ranger in Vietnam. My dad won’t tell me half his stories. After dealing with all of it, he drank himself to death at 40. The way our politicians throw away soldiers’ lives is appalling.

I read an article about a Netflix movie that was panned by the critics but many of our service men and women said that it was extremely accurate.
 
www.cnn.com

One reason house prices could stay sky-high

Last month, Before the Bell observed early signs that the red-hot global housing market could be starting to cool, as elevated prices appeared to hurt demand and home improvement spending eased.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com


"While low mortgage rates and the shift to working from home are also fueling housing demand, one under-appreciated reason for the price boom is that housing supply is very tight," the investment bank's economists said.

Price increases would normally feed a boom in the construction of new houses. But this hasn't materialized, thanks to raw material and labor shortages, as well as land regulations, according to Goldman.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top