Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect

[Stevicus]

You sure don't like privatization.

Not really. Especially not for prisons. It's like privatizing police departments and courts. We have to draw the line somewhere.

However, the state is
even more capable of extracting labor from the unwilling.

Sometimes I see guys in orange jumpsuits cleaning up alongside of the road. But I think they get paid for doing that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes I see guys in orange jumpsuits cleaning up alongside of the road. But I think they get paid for doing that.

You could apply for the job.
Free uniforms!

 

[crossfire]

I wasn't drawing any comparison. I was try to point out the absurdity that states should be able to overstep and trampling a right/freedom.

Yes, I know.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think that ultimately the right to abortion will be turned over to the individual states.

Why not turn it over yo individual PEOPLE? Why should any government tell people they can or cannot have children?

 

[Stevicus]

You could apply for the job.
Free uniforms!

They'd probably make me spend a night in the box.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, I know.

I remember @Twilight Hue was crying about a state banning plastic bags, stating it was an assault on freedom. But when a state denies women bodily autonomy, he couldn't care less.

 

[pearl]

Why not turn it over yo individual PEOPLE? Why should any government tell people they can or cannot have children?

That's what the current federal law is, a woman has the choice to give birth or not. The only way, in the future, to turn it over to the people, I think, would be to put it on the ballot. There is always the possibility of adding to the Supreme Court, its been done before.

 

[crossfire]

From the prolifewhistleblower site: It seems that individuals not connected to abortions in any way can sue people for up to $10,000 for each abortion they enable:

The Texas Heartbeat Act (Senate Bill 8) outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, and it requires an abortionist to use standard medical practice to detect the preborn child’s heartbeat before performing an elective abortion. If the heartbeat is detected, then the abortion is prohibited. A heartbeat is generally detectable around six weeks of gestation. The Texas Heartbeat Act will take effect on September 1, 2021.

Any abortion performed in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act is a criminal offense, and any individual or entity that aids or abets an abortion on a child with a detectable heartbeat in Texas is violating the law as well. This includes: (1) Abortion funds that provide financial or logistical support to women who kill their unborn children after a fetal heartbeat is detectable; (3) Doctors or medical personnel who provide abortion referrals after six weeks of gestation; and (4) Any other individual or entity that aids or abets an illegal abortion in any way.


The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique because it calls upon private citizens to hold abortion providers and their enablers accountable. Any person can sue any abortion provider who kills an unborn child after six weeks of gestation—and any person can sue anyone who aids or abets these illegal abortions. All of these individuals must pay damages to the person who sued them of at least $10,000 for each illegal abortion that they perform or assist.

Texas Right to Life will ensure that these lawbreakers are held accountable for their actions. Use the links below to report anyone who is violating the Texas Heartbeat Act by aiding or abetting a post-heartbeat abortion. And report any person or entity that aids or abets (or that intends to aid or abet) an illegal abortion in Texas.*
​

the site has the following the following blurb as an addendum:

* Please keep in mind that the Texas Heartbeat Act will take effect on September 1, 2021, regardless of whether a federal court enjoins the defendants in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 1:21-cv-00616-RP (W.D. Tex.), from enforcing it, and anyone who violates the Texas Heartbeat Act after September 1, 2021, will remain subject to lawsuits in federal court regardless of how Judge Pitman rules in Whole Woman’s Health.

​

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure if this arrangement for private citizens to sue other private citizens for aiding or abetting an abortion (even providing a referral) is legally viable and collect money for it without showing how the plaintiff was specifically harmed.

Is this an attempt to circumvent any ruling that states cannot enforce abortion laws?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

That's what the current federal law is, a woman has the choice to give birth or not. The only way, in the future, to turn it over to the people, I think, would be to put it on the ballot. There is always the possibility of adding to the Supreme Court, its been done before.

Texas appears to be exempt from federal law. They do things their way.

 

[crossfire]

From the prolifewhistleblower site: It seems that individuals not connected to abortions in any way can sue people for up to $10,000 for each abortion they enable:

The Texas Heartbeat Act (Senate Bill 8) outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, and it requires an abortionist to use standard medical practice to detect the preborn child’s heartbeat before performing an elective abortion. If the heartbeat is detected, then the abortion is prohibited. A heartbeat is generally detectable around six weeks of gestation. The Texas Heartbeat Act will take effect on September 1, 2021.

Any abortion performed in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act is a criminal offense, and any individual or entity that aids or abets an abortion on a child with a detectable heartbeat in Texas is violating the law as well. This includes: (1) Abortion funds that provide financial or logistical support to women who kill their unborn children after a fetal heartbeat is detectable; (3) Doctors or medical personnel who provide abortion referrals after six weeks of gestation; and (4) Any other individual or entity that aids or abets an illegal abortion in any way.


The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique because it calls upon private citizens to hold abortion providers and their enablers accountable. Any person can sue any abortion provider who kills an unborn child after six weeks of gestation—and any person can sue anyone who aids or abets these illegal abortions. All of these individuals must pay damages to the person who sued them of at least $10,000 for each illegal abortion that they perform or assist.

Texas Right to Life will ensure that these lawbreakers are held accountable for their actions. Use the links below to report anyone who is violating the Texas Heartbeat Act by aiding or abetting a post-heartbeat abortion. And report any person or entity that aids or abets (or that intends to aid or abet) an illegal abortion in Texas.*
​

the site has the following the following blurb as an addendum:

* Please keep in mind that the Texas Heartbeat Act will take effect on September 1, 2021, regardless of whether a federal court enjoins the defendants in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 1:21-cv-00616-RP (W.D. Tex.), from enforcing it, and anyone who violates the Texas Heartbeat Act after September 1, 2021, will remain subject to lawsuits in federal court regardless of how Judge Pitman rules in Whole Woman’s Health.

​

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure if this arrangement for private citizens to sue other private citizens for aiding or abetting an abortion (even providing a referral) is legally viable and collect money for it without showing how the plaintiff was specifically harmed.

Is this an attempt to circumvent any ruling that states cannot enforce abortion laws?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

The Dallas Observer calls Senate Bill 8 "a bounty-hunting scheme:
ACLU of Texas Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Stop New Abortion Law

They continued that SB 8 will create a “bounty hunting scheme” that will incentivize the public to sue anyone they think has violated the ban, such as abortion providers, health center workers or friends and family members who assisted in any way. If the lawsuit is successful, the person who sued will be rewarded with a minimum of $10,000, which the defendant must pay.​

 

[Twilight Hue]

I remember @Twilight Hue was crying about a state banning plastic bags, stating it was an assault on freedom. But when a state denies women bodily autonomy, he couldn't care less.

Makes me think of a question.

Why is abortion synonymous with "its my right to choose what I do with my body", but vaccines are seen as people not having that same right to choose with their body?

Plastic bags to much lesser extent, but all issues revolve around a person's rights and freedom to choose.

 

[Father Heathen]

Makes me think of a question.

Why is abortion synonymous with "its my right to choose what I do with my body", but vaccines are seen as people not having that same right to choose with their body?

Plastic bags to much lesser extent, but all issues revolve around a person's rights and freedom to choose.

Take smoking bans, sound ordinances, and speed limits for example. It's different when your actions potentially impact others.

 

[crossfire]

The four dissenters — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — argued in separate rebuttals that their five colleagues, without any real debate, were rewarding Texas lawmakers for inventing a novel scheme to stomp on decades of Supreme Court precedent.

"The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented," Roberts wrote, and he would have granted "preliminary relief" at least until "the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner." Instead, the court allowed the law to take effect before lower courts weighed in, "without ordinary merits briefing, and without oral argument."
Chief Justice Roberts, 3 other dissenters slam colleagues for hastily rewarding Texas 'bounty hunter' abortion ban scheme (msn.com)

So the courts need to consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for the laws that it passes? Interesting! This gets into private prisons and such.

 

[crossfire]

You sure don't like privatization. However, the state is
even more capable of extracting labor from the unwilling.

Actually, Texas senate bill 8 (the topic of this thread) does just that--it puts enforcement of this law into the hands of private citizens, who can sue anyone for even driving a person to get an abortion without having to show how the plaintiff was specifically harmed. It's a bounty system. The state is not taking responsibility for the laws it passes. Imagine what could happen if this precedent takes hold: professional bounty hunters pushing through frivolous laws so they can extract money from people via lawsuits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, Texas senate bill 8 (the topic of this thread) does just that--it puts enforcement of this law into the hands of private citizens, who can sue anyone for even driving a person to get an abortion without having to show how the plaintiff was specifically harmed. It's a bounty system. The state is not taking responsibility for the laws it passes. Imagine what could happen if this precedent takes hold: professional bounty hunters pushing through frivolous laws so they can extract money from people via lawsuits.

That is exactly what I criticized early on in the thread.
I find it insidious.
However, it isn't the kind of privatization he & I were addressing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nobody is forbidden to leave the state, and yea if your desperate enough, people can and do find the means to commute out of the state.

It's kind of funny the left accuses the right of fascism, when those qualities apply just as evenly.

Additionally,

I'm all for preventing dangerous groups from ever becoming a threat to the free world. If that's hawking war then yep, I'm a hawk in that regard.

Requires money and being free of obligations within the state. When I lived in Texas I had neither, especially as a minor. I literally had no control over where I was living. Plenty of people in poverty, or with disabilities can't just up and leave. Sure, some can, although they're told by asses in their refuge locations to just go home and fix it. Lol.

And besides, this shouldn't be allowed to exist in any state.

Too bad right wing fascists are the biggest threat to the free world. Literally the fastest growing terror group, and top of FBI watch list.
If you think it's just a 'both sides' deal at this point then there's no helping you.

 

[Kooky]

The right to abortion isn't specifically granted in the Constitution.
The prohibition against involuntary servitude is precisely stated
in the 13th Amendment. So there's a huge difference in legal
basis.
Note though that the military draft is unquestionably involuntary
servitude, yet all branches of government ignore the 13th, &
justify conscripting healthy young males.

Banning abortion literally constitutes the introduction of forced labor, does it not?

 

[Kooky]

That's what the current federal law is, a woman has the choice to give birth or not. The only way, in the future, to turn it over to the people, I think, would be to put it on the ballot. There is always the possibility of adding to the Supreme Court, its been done before.

Ah yes, the freedom of telling women "you have to remain pregnant, or else".

 

[Revoltingest]

Banning abortion literally constitutes the introduction of forced labor, does it not?

A joke about 2 different meanings of "labor"?

 

[Kooky]

A joke about 2 different meanings of "labor"?

Not at all. We have here a state literally forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, threatening serious punishment if they do not offer their bodies to be controlled by their government.

Although I guess you are right - it's closer to sex trafficking than literal bondage, which I suppose is technically legal in the US?