Texas Abortion Law

Was it on 6th street because there was after hours partying I intended and it was interesting and inviting
 
Garmel said:
In Temple, Tx.
Click to expand...

Temple's an interesting city, because it's got a lot of ghetto, but some of the "elite" really think they're high class. Back in 2017, we went to a steak place in downtown Temple with my wife's parents (who live in Belton). I forget what the place was called, but it had a douchie, British-sounding name. The food was good enough, but it has the most pretentious wait staff I've ever seen - worse than anything I've encountered on the East Coast or any big city in Europe. They looked at us and treated us like we were friggin' Leslie Cochran asking to take a bath in the kitchen sink.

I felt like telling the server, "I know that being this close to Waco, everything seems classy and upscale because the tap water isn't brown, but these folks are from Belton, and to them, your restaurant may as well be in Skid Row." But I held my tongue. I did tip the minimum socially acceptable amount. My father-in-law told me to fleece the guy entirely, but I couldn't go that far. It really pissed him off, and they never went back.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Temple's an interesting city, because it's got a lot of ghetto, but some of the "elite" really think they're high class. Back in 2017, we went to a steak place in downtown Temple with my wife's parents (who live in Belton). I forget what the place was called, but it had a douchie, British-sounding name. The food was good enough, but it has the most pretentious wait staff I've ever seen - worse than anything I've encountered on the East Coast or any big city in Europe. They looked at us and treated us like we were friggin' Leslie Cochran asking to take a bath in the kitchen sink.

I felt like telling the server, "I know that being this close to Waco, everything seems classy and upscale because the tap water isn't brown, but these folks are from Belton, and to them, your restaurant may as well be in Skid Row." But I held my tongue. I did tip the minimum socially acceptable amount. My father-in-law told me to fleece the guy entirely, but I couldn't go that far. It really pissed him off, and they never went back.
Click to expand...

That's Cheeves Bros. My business was located on the other side of the corner from it.
 
Who would have thought such debauchery went on in Temple? Iatrogenic had the pleasure of chopping cotton and hauling hay for $1 per hour in the cool summer climes :smh:of a small town just east of Rogers on Hwy 36. Granny always said there was nothing good in the Big City!
 
Horns11 said:
There are 10x as many ectopic pregnancies in a year as there are drunk driving deaths. But, my issue isn't the quantity, it's the enforcement of the exceptions rather than just allowing someone access to the abortion. I would have a big issue with a legal exception stating "a doctor must perform so-and-so procedure to determine..."
Click to expand...
If you didn’t perform a procedure, you wouldn’t know if it was an ectopic pregnancy. This is a good example of an exception because no fetus is going to survive an ectopic pregnancy.

I’m not really sure why you compared ectopic pregnancies to drunk driving deaths because the comparison is irrelevant. For example, the number of ectopic pregnancies is almost immeasurably small when compared to the number of stars in the universe.
 
How long did it take her to realize everyone in Hollywood is a Democrat? I knew that in middle school.
 
Mr. Deez said:
So I'm a little surprised nobody has made an issue (good or bad) of the new Texas abortion law. Before commenting, I decided to do something most commentators will never do. I read the bill. As a staunch pro-lifer, I have no problem with the underlying intent of the bill. I favor banning abortion unless it's necessary to save the life of the mother. I make no bones about that. In principle, I don't have a problem with the law being enforced by private action. We do that with some laws (like Medicaid fraud), and I see no problem with doing it here. (Full disclosure - I've known the lead author, Senator Bryan Hughes for almost 20 years. He is a very decent man of strong character and good intentions.)

But I do see some significant problems with the law that give me pause. First, the right to bring the civil action is almost completely unlimited. Only public officials and employees are excluded. Anybody else can bring suit - even if from out of state and even if that person has no interest in the abortion at all. As straight-up busybody can sue. Second, the class of potential defendants is very large, though it interestingly excludes the woman getting the abortion. It's not just the doctor. It's anyone who assists in the process - someone who gives a ride, reimburses costs (including insurers), etc.

The wording is also pretty astounding. Liability can be imposed on anyone who "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter."

Carefully consider the wording. You don't have to know the abortion violates the law to be liable. There's also a gray area about what must be known. Obviously you have to know that you're engaging in the conduct, but do you have to know that it's aiding or abetting an abortion? What if you're an uber driver or cab driver who takes a woman to a doctor's office and an illegal abortion is done there? There's no question that if you know she's going there for an abortion, you're on the hook (even if you didn't know it was an illegal abortion). However, what if you don't know what she's doing at the doctor's office? You still knowingly gave her a ride. Honestly, it's a gray area as to whether or not you're liable, and that's kinda scary.

Third, you do have some defenses if you're sued dealing with what you may or may not have known, but two points about those defenses. First, you have the burden of proof. They are affirmative defenses, not elements of the plaintiff's case. Second, they require that you "perform a reasonable investigation." That's an easy call for the doctor but not a particularly easy or reasonable one for the other countless potential defendants. Is the cab driver really required to ask every woman he picks up if she's going to have an abortion?

Third, the statute of limitations is pretty long - 4 years.

Fourth, attorney's fees and court costs cannot be imposed against the plaintiff under the Civil Practices and Remedies Code or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. What does that mean? It means that the normal penalties that apply to losing plaintiffs (even for filing frivolous pleadings and bad faith pleadings) do not apply here. Anybody can sue anybody in this regardless of merit, and other than their filing fees, there's no downside.

Fifth, the normal venue rules are completely rewritten. This law allows the plaintiff to bring suit in the plaintiff's venue even if other options (such as where the defendant is located or where the abortion occurred) are available. (The normal venue rule is far more restrictive.) That means that someone from Deaf Smith County (which I presume to be very conservative and pro-life) can sue a bunch of Austin defendants and haul them into a Deaf Smith County court, and venue can't be transferred without the consent of all parties regardless of hardship of the parties, regardless of whether a fair trial can be had, etc. It's a pretty harsh venue rule.

Again, I'm very pro-life, and I like what the law is trying to do, but damn, it's harsh and leaves very significant room for injustice. People who had no role serious role in an abortion could get completely jacked.
Click to expand...
As broad as this thing has been written, Plaintiffs might as well sue the electric utility and Oncor that provides electricity to the abortion mill. Same goes for suppliers of goods and services. No telling where the line is that any given judge will deem an act is too attenuated.
 
Chop said:
As broad as this thing has been written, Plaintiffs might as well sue the electric utility and Oncor that provides electricity to the abortion mill. Same goes for suppliers of goods and services. No telling where the line is that any given judge will deem an act is too attenuated.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a crazy exaggeration, but if we get a trial judge who wants to interpret the statute broadly, it could happen. My guess is that we'll see quite a few appeals. Democratic-leaning appeals courts (like El Paso and now Dallas, Houston, and Austin) will interpret it very narrowly. Republican-leaning appeals courts (like Texarkana, Waco, Eastland, Amarillo, etc.) will interpret it broadly. You'll see the Texas Supreme Court step in, and my guess is that they'll end up somewhere in between but closer to the Republican appellate courts.
 
I really wish this could have been timed to happen after mid-terms. There are a couple of things that emotionally charges the left enough to vote big. DJT seems to be one, but abortion is certainly one. I don't agree with Roe V Wade as it stands now but if they gut it, you can bet that will item one on most dem commercials next year.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I really wish this could have been timed to happen after mid-terms. There are a couple of things that emotionally charges the left enough to vote big. DJT seems to be one, but abortion is certainly one. I don't agree with Roe V Wade as it stands now but if they gut it, you can bet that will item one on most dem commercials next year.
Click to expand...
Conversely, it will also be something that got some conservatives off of the couch who often sit the mid-terms out because there was nothing of note on the ballot for their precinct...
 
Maybe if the USSC upholds the Texas law the really kooky Commie states will secede before the mid-terms. That would be even better.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I really wish this could have been timed to happen after mid-terms. There are a couple of things that emotionally charges the left enough to vote big. DJT seems to be one, but abortion is certainly one. I don't agree with Roe V Wade as it stands now but if they gut it, you can bet that will item one on most dem commercials next year.
Click to expand...

I'm not sweating it too much. The people who are truly motivated by abortion rights are already voting and already voting solidly Democratic. It's also a difficult issue to exploit, because Roe primarily affects state laws. If Roe is overturned, I don't think Republicans in Congress should start making some big push for national abortion laws. They should step back and let the states address the issue, which is how the law should have always been. If they're stupid and unprincipled enough to make a big national abortion ban a priority, then all bets are off.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I really wish this could have been timed to happen after mid-terms. There are a couple of things that emotionally charges the left enough to vote big. DJT seems to be one, but abortion is certainly one. I don't agree with Roe V Wade as it stands now but if they gut it, you can bet that will item one on most dem commercials next year.
Click to expand...
Read this. Restrictions on abortion is actually quite popular.
<i>Dobbs </i>abortion case threatens Democrats' house of cards
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not sweating it too much. The people who are truly motivated by abortion rights are already voting and already voting solidly Democratic. It's also a difficult issue to exploit, because Roe primarily affects state laws. If Roe is overturned, I don't think Republicans in Congress should start making some big push for national abortion laws. They should step back and let the states address the issue, which is how the law should have always been. If they're stupid and unprincipled enough to make a big national abortion ban a priority, then all bets are off.
Click to expand...
I can’t promise the GOP won’t try a ban but it would only occur after they sweep the house and senate- so not a 2022 issue. My guess dems will claim GOP will do this during the 2022 campaign regardless of truth.
 
mchammer said:
I can’t promise the GOP won’t try a ban but it would only occur after they sweep the house and senate- so not a 2022 issue. My guess dems will claim GOP will do this during the 2022 campaign regardless of truth.
Click to expand...

Dems will claim it to freak people out. However, we should not feed the idiocy. It would be politically stupid and blatantly unconstitutional. We shouldn't tear down one tyrannical legal structure that doesn't care about the law only to replace it with another.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Dems will claim it to freak people out. However, we should not feed the idiocy. It would be politically stupid and blatantly unconstitutional. We shouldn't tear down one tyrannical legal structure that doesn't care about the law only to replace it with another.
Click to expand...
I think GOP is fairly anti-federal mandate at the moment.
 
mchammer said:
I think GOP is fairly anti-federal mandate at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think the party is split. I think most Republicans are pro-life but respect federalism. However, a large number of them do not. Keep in mind that there is a "Human Life Amendment" in the platform and a call for a national ban on sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Does anybody have any vaguely legitimate argument for aborting a child simply because it is either male or female?
Click to expand...

I don't think they do, but that isn't the point. At the state level, I don't mind banning abortion for this reason and almost any reason. However, there is absolutely no basis to think the federal government has the legitimate authority to ban them. The proper level of authority is at the state level as it is for everything not given to Congress in the Constitution.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't think they do, but that isn't the point. At the state level, I don't mind banning abortion for this reason and almost any reason. However, there is absolutely no basis to think the federal government has the legitimate authority to ban them. The proper level of authority is at the state level as it is for everything not given to Congress in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Would anyone answer truthfully if the law included any sort of stipulation in that direction? Check the appropriate option for why you're getting an abortion...
 
Horns11 said:
Would anyone answer truthfully if the law included any sort of stipulation in that direction? Check the appropriate option for why you're getting an abortion...
Click to expand...
You would be surprised.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Dems will claim it to freak people out. However, we should not feed the idiocy. It would be politically stupid and blatantly unconstitutional. We shouldn't tear down one tyrannical legal structure that doesn't care about the law only to replace it with another.
Click to expand...
The irony is that, if the Dems try to claim unconstitutional mandate, it blows up in their face given all of the unconstitutional mandates they have been pushing for the past year. They would then trot out the 'but this is different' card, but the reality is that it isn't.
 
Horns11 said:
Would anyone answer truthfully if the law included any sort of stipulation in that direction? Check the appropriate option for why you're getting an abortion...
Click to expand...

Very few would be that dumb (though some would be). A ban specifically on sex-selection abortion would be a bit of a virtue signaling law. It wouldn't make a big difference, but it would look righteous to the right people - a little like the old "don't tell a cop you take it in the garage" laws. In other words, it's a goofy idea.
 
mb227 said:
The irony is that, if the Dems try to claim unconstitutional mandate, it blows up in their face given all of the unconstitutional mandates they have been pushing for the past year. They would then trot out the 'but this is different' card, but the reality is that it isn't.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but I still wouldn't want a national mandate. I'm pro-life, but I don't put that ahead of the constitutional order and federalist system. I also think the federal government would do a really crappy job enforcing such a law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top