WTF is Happening in Texas? 666 New Laws in Effect Today

[postman1782]

The Texas "reporting" statute that was part of this draconian anti-abortion horror show is essentially a religious bounty.

And if Lawrence Tribe is to be believed, the whole law could be struck down.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/...-abortion-law/

[pathora44]

The Texas "reporting" statute that was part of this draconian anti-abortion horror show is essentially a religious bounty.

So I have to ask you as a lawyer that if this law is considered constitutional and is allowed to stay then doesn't this mean the end of the U.S. civil court for intents and purpose. Typically to sue someone in civil court you first need to prove that you were personally harmed in someway by the defendant. This law though allows anyone to sue anyone even tangentially involved in the abortion. Hell by the wording of the law the city bus driver could be sued because he/she drove the pregnant woman even close to the abortion. This law smacks in the precedent that has long been established with civil lawsuits and wouldn't this law create legal precedent that now you no longer need to be personally harmed by the defendant. Wouldn't this open up the floodgates on the U.S. civil court system causing them to be backlogged for years to come while trying to dig through all the muck.

Also by Texas trying to do an end run around Constitutional protections by creating vigilante justice won't this basically mean the end of most constitutional protections against the government. If this law is allowed to stand what is to stop say California posting $10,000 dollar bounties for citizens to sue for environmental infractions and why can't New York post $10,000 bounties for citizens to sue over guns. According to this Texas law it isn't the government infringing on your rights it is the average citizen deputized in all but name by the state.

[Dezerte]

CEO of Tripwire Interactive (known for Killing Floor and the Red Orchestra-games) stepped down after expressing how proud he was of the abortion law.

https://www.tripwireinteractive.com/...eo-alan-wilson

Proud of #USSupremeCourt affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat. As an entertainer I don’t get political often. Yet with so many vocal peers on the other side of this issue, I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer.

https://twitter.com/RammJaeger/statu...45886670901250

Some of the studious working with Tripwire were not happy about this tweet, which may have prompted him stepping down.

https://twitter.com/shipwrightstdio/...09166560202754
https://twitter.com/TornBanner/statu...03859314724864

Now, some people will say that this is censorship, cancel culture or political correctness gone wild.

But the rest of us know that this is just how freedom of speech works because freedom of association is just as important. And this is really just the free market at work - companies don't want their reputation to suffer.

[Hollycakes]

lel.

[cubby]

So I have to ask you as a lawyer that if this law is considered constitutional and is allowed to stay then doesn't this mean the end of the U.S. civil court for intents and purpose. Typically to sue someone in civil court you first need to prove that you were personally harmed in someway by the defendant. This law though allows anyone to sue anyone even tangentially involved in the abortion. Hell by the wording of the law the city bus driver could be sued because he/she drove the pregnant woman even close to the abortion. This law smacks in the precedent that has long been established with civil lawsuits and wouldn't this law create legal precedent that now you no longer need to be personally harmed by the defendant. Wouldn't this open up the floodgates on the U.S. civil court system causing them to be backlogged for years to come while trying to dig through all the muck.

Also by Texas trying to do an end run around Constitutional protections by creating vigilante justice won't this basically mean the end of most constitutional protections against the government. If this law is allowed to stand what is to stop say California posting $10,000 dollar bounties for citizens to sue for environmental infractions and why can't New York post $10,000 bounties for citizens to sue over guns. According to this Texas law it isn't the government infringing on your rights it is the average citizen deputized in all but name by the state.

The two major issues you've raised above are spot on. And the Appellate Courts have already commented there are going to be issues with addressing the Constitutional issues because of the way it was written - and that the writing of it was done to purposely make constitutional challenges difficult.

The issue of standing will more than likely kill at least part of the bill. The SCOTUS upheld the law last week in a tight 5-4 ruling, but that decision was based solely on how the abortion clinics sued, not on any substance or procedural issues - which the ruling acknowledged could be addressed in further suits.

This is important because standing, i.e. people not specifically harmed by the bill, is being destroyed because of the "bounty" provision in the bill. Unfortunately, that issue can't be addressed by the courts until someone actually tries to claim said bounty. At which point the suit can move forward. What's interesting is that the way the law is written, anyone "assisting" with the abortion can be sued, to recover the $10,000. And one person could sue multiple people for the same "abortion event" - meaning, in your example for instance, the bus driver, the doctor, the nurse, the medical assistant, the receptionist - it's broad and unclear.

And that's good for us.

Broad and unclear laws are not favored by the court system - both liberal and conservative alike. Moreover, the issues of Standing becomes a huge problem - how are these people "affected" by the law. The answer is the Bounty - and bounties are not ok under the law, usually. Your second paragraph of analysis is spot on as to why. Because if Abortion Bounty's are ok, then Environmental Bounty's are ok, and Gun Bounty's are ok, etc. This would open the flood gate to bad law and horrible consequences.

So at the end of the day, or in this case at the end of a couple years, some or all of the law will fall. But the worst, most long lasting provisions, i.e. 6 weeks, etc, will stand. And we are sure to also see Roe fall at the same time.

[Zython]

baby killing? so what. haha i love you people

Again, you all laughed off 600k people dying of Covid. You all laughed off synagogue and mosque shootings. You all laughed off war crimes. You all laugh off poverty and homelessness. So again, why should anyone believe you sincerely care if anyone, much less an unborn fetus, lives or dies?

[Poopymonster]

The two major issues you've raised above are spot on. And the Appellate Courts have already commented there are going to be issues with addressing the Constitutional issues because of the way it was written - and that the writing of it was done to purposely make constitutional challenges difficult.

The issue of standing will more than likely kill at least part of the bill. The SCOTUS upheld the law last week in a tight 5-4 ruling, but that decision was based solely on how the abortion clinics sued, not on any substance or procedural issues - which the ruling acknowledged could be addressed in further suits.

This is important because standing, i.e. people not specifically harmed by the bill, is being destroyed because of the "bounty" provision in the bill. Unfortunately, that issue can't be addressed by the courts until someone actually tries to claim said bounty. At which point the suit can move forward. What's interesting is that the way the law is written, anyone "assisting" with the abortion can be sued, to recover the $10,000. And one person could sue multiple people for the same "abortion event" - meaning, in your example for instance, the bus driver, the doctor, the nurse, the medical assistant, the receptionist - it's broad and unclear.

And that's good for us.

Broad and unclear laws are not favored by the court system - both liberal and conservative alike. Moreover, the issues of Standing becomes a huge problem - how are these people "affected" by the law. The answer is the Bounty - and bounties are not ok under the law, usually. Your second paragraph of analysis is spot on as to why. Because if Abortion Bounty's are ok, then Environmental Bounty's are ok, and Gun Bounty's are ok, etc. This would open the flood gate to bad law and horrible consequences.

So at the end of the day, or in this case at the end of a couple years, some or all of the law will fall. But the worst, most long lasting provisions, i.e. 6 weeks, etc, will stand. And we are sure to also see Roe fall at the same time.

So all it'll take it a person to try to collect. Until then, pregnant women who might be shitty mothers, reproductive health care providers, and friends of anyone with a uterus get to live in fear. Hopefully assholes greed gets THAT ball of shit flowing quickly.

By then it'll be too late for some of them.

[Fugus]

The words he's using...formulated sentence structure, doesn't sound as if it's from an older person. (..oh and if anyone wondered, I be 56yrs)

And here I am thinking I am old for this place at 40.

[Benggaul]

And here I am thinking I am old for this place at 40.

Whippersnapper. :P

[Fugus]

Whippersnapper. :P

Well, if it helps with the cred, I am retired at 40, lol.

[tehdang]

The two major issues you've raised above are spot on. And the Appellate Courts have already commented there are going to be issues with addressing the Constitutional issues because of the way it was written - and that the writing of it was done to purposely make constitutional challenges difficult.

The issue of standing will more than likely kill at least part of the bill. The SCOTUS upheld the law last week in a tight 5-4 ruling, but that decision was based solely on how the abortion clinics sued, not on any substance or procedural issues - which the ruling acknowledged could be addressed in further suits.

This is important because standing, i.e. people not specifically harmed by the bill, is being destroyed because of the "bounty" provision in the bill. Unfortunately, that issue can't be addressed by the courts until someone actually tries to claim said bounty. At which point the suit can move forward. What's interesting is that the way the law is written, anyone "assisting" with the abortion can be sued, to recover the $10,000. And one person could sue multiple people for the same "abortion event" - meaning, in your example for instance, the bus driver, the doctor, the nurse, the medical assistant, the receptionist - it's broad and unclear.

And that's good for us.

Broad and unclear laws are not favored by the court system - both liberal and conservative alike. Moreover, the issues of Standing becomes a huge problem - how are these people "affected" by the law. The answer is the Bounty - and bounties are not ok under the law, usually. Your second paragraph of analysis is spot on as to why. Because if Abortion Bounty's are ok, then Environmental Bounty's are ok, and Gun Bounty's are ok, etc. This would open the flood gate to bad law and horrible consequences.

So at the end of the day, or in this case at the end of a couple years, some or all of the law will fall. But the worst, most long lasting provisions, i.e. 6 weeks, etc, will stand. And we are sure to also see Roe fall at the same time.

I don’t think the ruling on an injunction really gives enough insight into the question of whether Roe (or more precisely Casey) will fall. The bill was designed to evade injunctions by backloading injured parties and cutting out state officials. The true constitutionality never got a ruling. The 5-4 is properly seen as a non-action or a procedural action, and majority pointed this out.

On a slightly related point, the Supreme Court already agreed to pick up the case about the Mississippi Law (15 weeks mostly banned) this year. We’ll be hearing what scotus thinks in that case whether or not another case under Texas law makes it to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket in the near future.

[cubby]

So all it'll take it a person to try to collect. Until then, pregnant women who might be shitty mothers, reproductive health care providers, and friends of anyone with a uterus get to live in fear. Hopefully assholes greed gets THAT ball of shit flowing quickly.

By then it'll be too late for some of them.

Plus, this whole thing a yuge step backwards. Because we're all arguing/discussing the "bounty" portion of the new law, meanwhile abortion/reproductive rights have been set back decades, and we aren't even there yet for fighting/beating-back (in the larger sense). Basically, the Neo-Con GQP has pushed the Center even more right, and even if we win one of these battles (the bounty one), we've still lost the larger war. Possibly forever - or at least for a generation.

But yeah, for many, many thousands of families, it will be far too late. And the GQP has made it positively clear they could care less about a life once it's born.

- - - Updated - - -

I don’t think the ruling on an injunction really gives enough insight into the question of whether Roe (or more precisely Casey) will fall. The bill was designed to evade injunctions by backloading injured parties and cutting out state officials. The true constitutionality never got a ruling. The 5-4 is properly seen as a non-action or a procedural action, and majority pointed this out.

On a slightly related point, the Supreme Court already agreed to pick up the case about the Mississippi Law (15 weeks mostly banned) this year. We’ll be hearing what scotus thinks in that case whether or not another case under Texas law makes it to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket in the near future.

Exactly - and I said as much. This was just a perfunctory ruling on a procedural issue more than about any kind of merits.

With those two cases coming up the pipeline, Roe/Casey is almost certain to fall. Barret was literally a Handmaiden and Kavanaugh doesn't think women have a right to tampons. So abortion as a nationally protected right is done (it should fall in late 2024/early 2025). And we won't get it back, if we ever do, for decades.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you all laughed off 600k people dying of Covid. You all laughed off synagogue and mosque shootings. You all laughed off war crimes. You all laugh off poverty and homelessness. So again, why should anyone believe you sincerely care if anyone, much less an unborn fetus, lives or dies?

We need a catch phrase for "he just wants to watch the world burn", because sometimes it seems really apt.

[Beefhammer]

Again, you all laughed off 600k people dying of Covid. You all laughed off synagogue and mosque shootings. You all laughed off war crimes. You all laugh off poverty and homelessness. So again, why should anyone believe you sincerely care if anyone, much less an unborn fetus, lives or dies?

He doesn't care. Conservatives don't care. Republicans don't care.fuck even people claiming to be Christian don't care. The claim to care about an unborn child, rather a zygote/fetus while being in favor of war, the death penalty, punishing the poor for the audacity to be poor.

It's all about cruelty and keeping women "in their place". So if any so-called "man" who supports this better be 100% in favor of being locked into a chastity belt until marriage since pre marital sex leads to unwanted babies and is a sin. The should also be in favor of the state forcing the man to fully support the child until adulthood. 1 missed payment shall see 15 years in prison, assets seized, and forced castration so he can never reproduce again.

[Doctor Amadeus]

they're causing major problems for themselves and the potential kid if they don't take tests. tests work well before 6 weeks.

This is true, and I think women or men more proactive in their general health especially when sexually active is important.

- - - Updated - - -

time to incentivize families and criminalize adultery

I agree with this, although that really isn't the material issue here.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you all laughed off 600k people dying of Covid. You all laughed off synagogue and mosque shootings. You all laughed off war crimes. You all laugh off poverty and homelessness. So again, why should anyone believe you sincerely care if anyone, much less an unborn fetus, lives or dies?

You hit the nail on the head, I am a liberal and far left, but I am also a Protestant Christian and until this issue was made a political neither the Catholic or Christian Church got involved in this matter until relatively about the 1950s.

A lot of the advocates against abortion are White Supremacist's, That is how it became a political issue.

[bladeXcrasher]

Law working as intended. 3 out of 4 clinics in San Antonio have stopped providing abortion services because of this law.

[Themius]

Country is going to shit faster than anticipated.

[Doctor Amadeus]

He doesn't care. Conservatives don't care. Republicans don't care.fuck even people claiming to be Christian don't care. The claim to care about an unborn child, rather a zygote/fetus while being in favor of war, the death penalty, punishing the poor for the audacity to be poor.

It's all about cruelty and keeping women "in their place". So if any so-called "man" who supports this better be 100% in favor of being locked into a chastity belt until marriage since pre marital sex leads to unwanted babies and is a sin. The should also be in favor of the state forcing the man to fully support the child until adulthood. 1 missed payment shall see 15 years in prison, assets seized, and forced castration so he can never reproduce again.

I do and I am a Christian and I care, in fact I am 100% Against abortion, I hate it, I hate the entire idea of it, the entire issue makes me seriously uncomfortable, HOWEVER I follow the science and it is that science that allows me to while I disagree with Abortion, I DO NOT agree with making it ILLEGAL similar to criminalizing Drug Addicts.

It's a Medical and Health issue, I think the laws as they are written are sufficient that abortion is legal up and until a fetus becomes a viable human being.


And Yes there are some very good arguments against abortion and in support of Texas I think are persuasive but over all they aren't

Trying to stay away from any forbidden topics and only making short points as it pertains to the Texas law.


Governor Gregg Abbot of Texas is an idiot and has committed as much over reach as step as Governor DeSantis in Florida, or Newsom in California or Whitmer in Michigan.

The Only difference is simply where you align politically. If you can't mandate fucking mask to protect others from an deadly infection, you sure as shit shouldn't be allowed to force anyone to term with a pregnancy they do not want period.

[Darththeo]

Country is going to shit faster than anticipated.

To some people, this is improving the Country.
I don't see how, but people believe these are better.

[Ivanstone]

Governor Gregg Abbot of Texas is an idiot and has committed as much over reach as step as Governor DeSantis in Florida, or Newsom in California or Whitmer in Michigan.

The Only difference is simply where you align politically.

Citation please.

There are huge differences between them. Two of them stand on the side of radical evil. Two of them don't. I would like to see this "list" of "over reach" by Newsom and Whitmer.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Citation please.

There are huge differences between them. Two of them stand on the side of radical evil. Two of them don't. I would like to see this "list" of "over reach" by Newsom and Whitmer.

Well I support Newsom and Whitmer. And I was referring to the vaccine mandates, lockdowns and mask.

Again which I agree with. My point is the same people who bitched about them support guys like Desabtis and Abbot