Jump to content

Menu

How to avoid getting sued in Texas?


Ordinary Shoes
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

It may be. You don't know. 

First, giving birth is dangerous and there is always the risk of death and other serious complications. 

Second, there are emotional consequences that may cause suicide in the future. 

We have no idea and there is no justification for assuming that death isn't possible. 

Abortion always results in death for one human being. We shouldn't kill one person because another person may be at risk in the future.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, J-rap said:

And for all the talk there is about when does the human person actually begin?  

We know that the embryo from the earliest stages is living and growing. We know that he or she is human and not some other kind of being. As I've said, the only differences between born people and unborn people are their degree of dependence, their development and their location. Which of those differences justifies taking someone else's life? In my view, none. Our right to life shouldn't be dependent on what stage we are in--not being a fetus, or an infant, or a toddler, or a senior.

In any case, if we're not sure, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing someone? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, J-rap said:

My pastor is strongly pro-life, but believes that unless you are willing to adopt one of those babies and raise him/her yourself, or invite the single mother + baby or scared, desperate couple + baby to live with you in your home for as long as they need help, then you have no right to criminalize abortions.

Absolutely pro-life people should do more to support pregnant women and families. But this is like saying, "Unless you invite a refugee into your home, you can't be against current immigration policies." "Unless you foster children, you can't be against child abuse." "Unless you volunteer for a peacekeeping missions, you can't be against war." It doesn't follow.

Not everyone can do all things at all times and that doesn't take away our right to speak for other human beings who are being treated as dispensable.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you use the word “kill” and “human being” and “heart” for six week old embryos but those are inflammatory words to some degree in the sense that there is an emotional overlay that we are all supposed to respond to that is informed by your religious beliefs—religious beliefs that not everyone has.

When we talk about the heart of a six week embryo, what we are talking about is the meso layer of cells as the embryo at that point has three layers of cells. There is electric activity there, but the word heart isn’t this defined chambered organ with arteries and vessels the way that we think about as “heart” in the rest of the English language. 
 

I think we are exactly talking about whether it is the “same” or not. Some hold that it is not the same.
 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How is it a realistic goal to criminalize abortion, something that always existed? If you make it illegal, women will still have abortions. 

We've made child abuse and child killing (outside the womb) illegal. People still do it. The same goes for every other crime. But there is no doubt that making something illegal lessens its frequency tremendously. 

When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Well, how realistic is it to ensure that someone isn't unjustly killed?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking all of the questions not to be divisive or rude but because I am re-examining a lot of the things I had been told and believed within a certain framework and as life has gone and beliefs have changed, I really am holding up each piece of information and belief I had and re-examining that.

I think the definition of when something is a fully formed life in and of itself is something people disagree on. Likewise, there are arguments around whether the most important thing is whether a baby is entitled to take a breath (through intubation) or whether quality of life should play into decision making. Viability is now somewhere around 23 weeks but after my time watching babies in NICU (tearing skin, ECMO, sepsis, replacing lines like IVs every hour or two), I don’t know that I necessarily agree that every baby should be fully supported for life after birth. Some of the most loving acts I saw were parents who chose to stop care rather than continue. OTOH, I think deferential caution should be used. 
 

This is why I think decision making should happen between care providers and parents. There are medical ethicists and hospital attorneys that can provide a stop point. I don’t think the best decision making comes at the hands of legislators.

  • Like 15
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

And if they can't be entirely eliminated, why not have them happen in a safe environment? 

Because we are under to obligation to make it safer or easier for one human being to kill another, and because attempting to do so has resulted in the deaths of over 880,000 human beings in the United States every year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most effective reduction in abortion numbers happened when Colorado increased access to birth control, particularly for minors. If you want to reduce abortions, truly, increase free and easy access to medical care. Texas has done the opposite of that…once again. (First they attacked Planned Parenthood to reduce access to birth control.)

  • Like 21
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I understand that you use the word “kill” and “human being” and “heart” for six week old embryos but those are inflammatory words to some degree in the sense that there is an emotional overlay that we are all supposed to respond to that is informed by your religious beliefs—religious beliefs that not everyone has.

When we talk about the heart of a six week embryo, what we are talking about is the meso layer of cells as the embryo at that point has three layers of cells. There is electric activity there, but the word heart isn’t this defined chambered organ with arteries and vessels the way that we think about as “heart” in the rest of the English language. 
 

I think we are exactly talking about whether it is the “same” or not. Some hold that it is not the same.

Ending someone's life is killing.

I am not pro-life because of my religion. That is an assumption on your part which is simply not true.

There is no embryology textbook I have ever seen that would call the embryo or fetus anything but "human." You may argue that he or she is not a person under the law--as other human beings have also been labeled non-persons in our history--but that is a question of rights and not of classification.

According to the link I posted earlier from the St. Louis Children's Hospital, "By the end of the fifth week, the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body." I could find more references if I had time. But honestly that is neither here nor there. We are all made of cells. Some of us have better or more developed hearts than others. That doesn't mean we are less worthy of life. 

And speaking of inflammatory language--pro-lifers have been called all kinds of things on this thread, from "bottom dwellers" to women who have submitted to "training." It’s incredibly condescending.

Sometimes  calling something what it is is necessary, whether we are talking about police brutality or COVID stupidity or abortion.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I am asking all of the questions not to be divisive or rude but because I am re-examining a lot of the things I had been told and believed within a certain framework and as life has gone and beliefs have changed, I really am holding up each piece of information and belief I had and re-examining that.

I think this is an excellent thing to do and I admire you for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

The law tells people they can't do things with their own bodies all the time. We can't drunk drive, we can't steal, we can't use illicit drugs, we can't kill other (born) human beings. Those laws don't make us less.

Yes. It's like the mask mandates. When we live in a society, we are often asked to limit our behavior to help another person. However, we are not asked to do something that poses a significant risk to ourselves. 

We require someone to wear a mask but not donate a kidney. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

Abortion always results in death for one human being. We shouldn't kill one person because another person may be at risk in the future.

Why don't you force me to donate a kidney? I know several people who have donated kidneys and they're fine. 

The lack of a working kidney will always result in the death of another person. 

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

 

We've made child abuse and child killing (outside the womb) illegal. People still do it. The same goes for every other crime. But there is no doubt that making something illegal lessens its frequency tremendously. 

When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Well, how realistic is it to ensure that someone isn't unjustly killed?"

My not abusing or killing my child does not subject me to a medical procedure. 

Do you believe that pregnant women have the human right to avoid a medical condition? We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Well, how realistic is it that to ensure that someone isn't forced to undergo birth which might kill them?" 

Conceivably you could completely eliminate many crimes. Make child abuse illegal and monitor every family to ensure there is no abuse. 

But there is no realistic way to prevent abortion. There will always be pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. 

Why not start first with the things that all of you agree would be good for pregnant women like maternity leave and programs to help poor families. Why is criminalizing abortion the first step instead of the last step? 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

We know that the embryo from the earliest stages is living and growing. We know that he or she is human and not some other kind of being. As I've said, the only differences between born people and unborn people are their degree of dependence, their development and their location. Which of those differences justifies taking someone else's life? In my view, none. Our right to life shouldn't be dependent on what stage we are in--not being a fetus, or an infant, or a toddler, or a senior.

In any case, if we're not sure, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing someone? 

Sure. I wouldn't have an abortion. 

But when another woman has abortion "we" are not killing someone. 

Why not let her make the decision about what's right for her instead of taking away from her the right to make the decision? 

Like I wrote upthread, pregnancy is unique in that there are two lives one body. There are times when the interests of both lives are completely aligned. But there are other things when they are not aligned. Who gets to decide what to do then? 

When you say that we should err on the side of "not killing," you are saying that the mother is subordinate to the baby. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 11:27 AM, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:


So now we live in a country where a woman might avoid the ER due to the skyrocketing cost of uninsured medical care AND the possibility of a civil lawsuit. 

Don't forget catching Covid.

 

9 hours ago, MercyA said:

I'm sorry, but this is just not accurate.

Mayo Clinic: [...]

Having a beating heart doesn't make someone a human organism under the biological definition of life, which is why Roe was decided that way in the first place. It may in some religious groups be used to identify human life, and that's fine, but imposing this religious interpretation on millions of  unwilling people who may conceive through no fault of their own is IMO a violent act. Forced childbirth in support of someone else's ideology would literally be torture to me.

 

I'm not going back to Texas, and I'm helping my friend make plans to move. The Southwest is her home, but it's no longer a safe place to stay.

Edited by Carolina Wren
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modern American pro-life movement is completely toxic. I think it's hard to see that inside. It's convincing no one on the outside. Their victories will cause the deaths and suffering of women and children. Whenever you hurt women, you hurt their children. 

There are so many things that could be done to create a society where less women wanted to have abortions. Why isn't that the first step? 

I know that some pro-life people will say that they support those things. But do you support them before you support criminalizing abortion? 

Criminalizing abortion without creating a more pro-child society will hurt women and children. 

Do you work to bring about that more pro-child society? Do you support candidates that would do that or not? 

I know the counterargument to this is that we stop the killing right now but we've already tried that. We know what life was like before Roe. Women had illegal abortions and some of them died. 

Could providing every pregnant woman in the USA healthcare and financial aid immediately stop the killing right now? It actually probably would immediately reduce the number of abortions. So why is that unrealistic? 

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

We know that the embryo from the earliest stages is living and growing. We know that he or she is human and not some other kind of being. As I've said, the only differences between born people and unborn people are their degree of dependence, their development and their location. Which of those differences justifies taking someone else's life? In my view, none. Our right to life shouldn't be dependent on what stage we are in--not being a fetus, or an infant, or a toddler, or a senior.

In any case, if we're not sure, shouldn't we err on the side of not killing someone? 

This is where there is a vast difference of opinions.  We will never know the scientific answer to this, this side of the moon.   So how to deal with that is a matter of opinion, which makes it such a difficult thing to settle legally.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linking to an interesting Twitter thread. It contains a post that went viral yesterday that was subsequently deleted. 

 

The interesting posts are from a Jesuit. He discusses the cost of aligning the anti-abortion movement with the culture war. 

The deleted post demonstrates well a kind of irrational response that proves Fr. Sawyer is onto something. 

 

[Twitter image deleted by moderator for thoroughly unnecessary language.]

This post went viral and Dougherty locked down his Twitter and deleted it. Of note, Dougherty recently write an editorial in the NYT about the Latin Mass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

When you say that we should err on the side of "not killing," you are saying that the mother is subordinate to the baby. 

You’re actually saying the mother is subordinate to whoever gets to make the decision about when the risk to the mother is high enough to justify abortion, assuming you allow any exceptions at all.

I believe that there are situations when abortion is a morally acceptable choice.  And I believe that the person who has the right and responsibility to make that choice is the pregnant woman.  That is why I am opposed to legal restrictions on abortion pre-viability . . . the woman gets to make the decision as to whether she will use her body to provide life support for another person.  I believe that choosing to do so is almost always the moral choice, but having the legal right to make the decision means having the right to make the morally wrong decision.  
 

We give people the power to make moral decisions that affect life and death all the time.  I believe that pregnant women are competent moral agents to the same degree as people who set highway speed limits, people who choose targets for smart bombs, people who keep guns by their bedside to shoot intruders,  people who decide to publish or suppress the results of medical studies, people who choose to check or not check the  organ donor box on their drivers license application, etc.  

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Danae said:

You’re actually saying the mother is subordinate to whoever gets to make the decision about when the risk to the mother is high enough to justify abortion, assuming you allow any exceptions at all.

I believe that there are situations when abortion is a morally acceptable choice.  And I believe that the person who has the right and responsibility to make that choice is the pregnant woman.  That is why I am opposed to legal restrictions on abortion pre-viability . . . the woman gets to make the decision as to whether she will use her body to provide life support for another person.  I believe that choosing to do so is almost always the moral choice, but having the legal right to make the decision means having the right to make the morally wrong decision.  
 

We give people the power to make moral decisions that affect life and death all the time.  I believe that pregnant women are competent moral agents to the same degree as people who set highway speed limits, people who choose targets for smart bombs, people who keep guns by their bedside to shoot intruders,  people who decide to publish or suppress the results of medical studies, people who choose to check or not check the  organ donor box on their drivers license application, etc.  

I think you misunderstand me. I thought I was clear on this thread that I think women should be allowed to decide this for themselves. 

This was from one of my posts from this morning. 

Quote

I would prefer "safe, legal, and rare." But if I acknowledge that women are human beings then I make medical choices for them. I can't dictate when it's okay for them to have an abortion. So that means "safe and legal" and let women decide. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MercyA said:

Oh, come on now. None of the active pro-lifers I have known throughout the years believed anything close to this.

I have seen them support women and children with their time and their money and anything else that is needed, before and after birth. They are some of the most dedicated, principled, loving, giving, gentle people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Please don't paint with so broad a brush.

You know the nice ones. 

They're not all nice. 

And as we've discussed before, many are not ethically consistent. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Junie said:

By being pro-life, I'm not supporting the fetus over the mother.

However when the fetus loses and is aborted, the result is death. 

While the mother may not want to carry the baby to term and/or raise it, that hardship is not equivalent to death.

 

 

Pregnancy and birth certainly carries a risk of death/disability, and is far higher in a completed pregnancy than in a first trimester abortion. 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Junie said:

I see it as the right of the mother to have a more comfortable life is subordinate to the right of the fetus to live.

 

I'd quibble with this idea that women have abortions 'for a more comfortable life'.

I think this is an inaccurate stereotype of the 'type' of woman assumed to have abortions. There is no type, and 'because I want a more comfortable life' is not a driving motivation for many. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think you misunderstand me. I thought I was clear on this thread that I think women should be allowed to decide this for themselves. 

This was from one of my posts from this morning. 

 

I did not misunderstand that.  I was disagreeing with your reasoning, not your conclusion.

edit:  and only a tiny part of your reasoning at that.

 

edit again:  I think I see the confusion. My “you” in “you’re saying” has the same referent as your “you,” not you. 😉

Edited by Danae
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'd quibble with this idea that women have abortions 'for a more comfortable life'.

I think this is an inaccurate stereotype of the 'type' of woman assumed to have abortions. There is no type, and 'because I want a more comfortable life' is not a driving motivation for many. 

"A more comfortable life" was probably not the best phrasing for me to use. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

This was the specific study that I was looking at.  Most of the reasons that women give for having an abortion deal more with the hardship of raising a child than the hardship of giving birth.

I know that there's not really a type of woman who has abortions.  It happens across all demographics.  But, most of the reasons given in this survey would be what I consider quality of life issues, not health issues. 

Those of you who are saying that pro-lifers need to step up in other areas -- financial support, emotional support, childcare, adoption -- are absolutely right.  

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Junie said:

"A more comfortable life" was probably not the best phrasing for me to use. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

This was the specific study that I was looking at.  Most of the reasons that women give for having an abortion deal more with the hardship of raising a child than the hardship of giving birth.

I know that there's not really a type of woman who has abortions.  It happens across all demographics.  But, most of the reasons given in this survey would be what I consider quality of life issues, not health issues. 

Those of you who are saying that pro-lifers need to step up in other areas -- financial support, emotional support, childcare, adoption -- are absolutely right.  

 

Family Court reform and VAWG need to be added to that list. 

Women who 'aren't ready' are often thinking of the well-being of a potential child. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

This is where there is a vast difference of opinions.  We will never know the scientific answer to this, this side of the moon.   So how to deal with that is a matter of opinion, which makes it such a difficult thing to settle legally.

This, specifically with reference to Jewish law, which states as fact that a fetus is not a separate being until she takes a breath.  For people who know this as fact, there is no other way to see it.  Ditto for devout Christians who know that life begins at conception.  Faith and moral reasoning as a basis of knowing are both individually- and community-based, but ultimately remain opinion.  The Supreme Court is currently composed of a majority who believe that life begins at conception.  It would be a very different world if, say, 8 of 9 Justices - and the majority of the country - were devout Jews.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Harpymom said:

This, specifically with reference to Jewish law, which states as fact that a fetus is not a separate being until she takes a breath.  For people who know this as fact, there is no other way to see it.  Ditto for devout Christians who know that life begins at conception.  Faith and moral reasoning as a basis of knowing are both individually- and community-based, but ultimately remain opinion.  The Supreme Court is currently composed of a majority who believe that life begins at conception.  It would be a very different world if, say, 8 of 9 Justices - and the majority of the country - were devout Jews.

Well, some Christians would say life begins at quickening...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Texas and I am worried.  My son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild share a home. They have been trying to have another child for the past year or so and daughter-in-law has suffered 3 miscarriages over the past 8 months.  She is working with her doctor to try and figure out why this is, but what happens if she has another miscarriage and someone thinks it is an abortion?

  • Sad 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rebel said:

I live in Texas and I am worried.  My son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild share a home. They have been trying to have another child for the past year or so and daughter-in-law has suffered 3 miscarriages over the past 8 months.  She is working with her doctor to try and figure out why this is, but what happens if she has another miscarriage and someone thinks it is an abortion?

That made me worry, just reading it. I’m so sorry.

This doesn’t sound like a remotely sane law. There’s so much room for bad actors to … not just act badly, but to profit from it. 
 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m mostly concerned about the potential for using this law as a harassment tool.  Putting random citizens in charge of enforcing laws, any laws! is a bad idea.  How many people in this board have narcissistic or toxic in laws or ex spouses, crazy neighbors that could use this law to harass?  Even taking abortion out of the picture it’s just a terrible idea.  

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rebel said:

I live in Texas and I am worried.  My son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild share a home. They have been trying to have another child for the past year or so and daughter-in-law has suffered 3 miscarriages over the past 8 months.  She is working with her doctor to try and figure out why this is, but what happens if she has another miscarriage and someone thinks it is an abortion?

I would think in that situation, her doctor could easily set it straight??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MercyA said:

Abortion always results in death for one human being. We shouldn't kill one person because another person may be at risk in the future.

Plus..there is a suicide rate related to abortions. Women are harmed by abortion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Janeway said:

Plus..there is a suicide rate related to abortions. Women are harmed by abortion. 

🙄 okay, bull*feathers* then. 🙄

Although it doesn’t adequately express my disgust with the bald faced lie.

Edited by bibiche
Curse words are not allowed.
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

But they'd still be liable for the legal fees, even if it was clear that there was no abortion.  That is my understanding of how the law works. 

Maybe an attorney wouldn't be necessary if her doctor releases her medical records to prove he has been seeing/treating her for miscarriages for the past year?  It just seems like there has to be a little common sense thrown in there or the state will have absolutely no time for anything else.  Women have miscarriages all the time...  If people are sued every time a woman has a miscarriage, things would become too crazy even for those who supported the law in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Maybe an attorney wouldn't be necessary if her doctor releases her medical records to prove he has been seeing/treating her for miscarriages for the past year?  It just seems like there has to be a little common sense thrown in there or the state will have absolutely no time for anything else.  Women have miscarriages all the time...  If people are sued every time a woman has a miscarriage, things would become too crazy even for those who supported the law in the first place.

Unfortunately, I think this year has made it perfectly clear that the government of Texas doesn't have even a little common sense. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Janeway said:

Plus..there is a suicide rate related to abortions. Women are harmed by abortion. 

Not true. 

Quote

“We should not be telling women seeking abortions that abortion may increase their risk for suicidal ideation or mental health problems, nor should mental health professionals tell or suggest to women that an abortion is the reason for any mental health problems a woman may be experiencing,” Steinberg said. “We should consider integrating mental health screenings into the abortion care setting because women having abortions are more likely to have pre-existing mental health problems.”

Abortion does not increase women's suicide risk

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Maybe an attorney wouldn't be necessary if her doctor releases her medical records to prove he has been seeing/treating her for miscarriages for the past year?  It just seems like there has to be a little common sense thrown in there or the state will have absolutely no time for anything else.  Women have miscarriages all the time...  If people are sued every time a woman has a miscarriage, things would become too crazy even for those who supported the law in the first place.

A lawyer may not be strictly necessary to defend against something like this, but there is going to be a burden on a woman’s time.  Trying to represent yourself, figuring out how to submit paperwork yourself, taking unpaid l time off of work and maybe needing to  find childcare while a woman spends the day at the courthouse dealing with everything, that’s all a lot.
 

 Not to mention that in the case of this law in Texas you are going to be sued for helping someone else.  What if they don’t cooperate?  What if they aren’t under a doctors care, maybe they were never even pregnant.  Now you need them to go to their doctor, somehow prove they were never pregnant and give you that medical info?  Will their health insurance cover that, or does the person being sued need to cover it?  This is gonna get real messy real fast.  
 

A friend of mine DIYed her divorce and it took the 2 of them a whole day walking things placesat the court house to get paperwork figured out for something as simple as a non contested divorce. 

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think purposeful abortion should be illegal. We shouldn’t legalize purposely ending a life.  There’s no rational or logical or scientific argument to say that how they were created, their location, their size, their physical form (or deform) or mental acuity (or lack of it) removes any being’s humanness or disqualifies them from being treated as a person by fellow humans and the law.

I think there are occasions when the only way to save the physical life of a mother may sadly have the unintended affect of causing the unborn baby to die or be born too early to survive.  I think that sometimes babies die in utero and do not pass through in their own, those mothers need medical interventions.  

I think this law was intended to make “back alley medicine” practitioners face consequences. I’m not opposed to that. And since it’s what proabortionist have been screaming they feared would happen, I wouldn’t think anyone would be. 

That said. I think the law is crap. It’s too broad and too vague. And most people don’t even know what the medical definition of abortion is, so good luck getting the legal system to agree on it - which I suspect is why they made the law so vague.

But even worse. I think the ricochet political response could lead to federal legalization of any kind of abortion at any stage by any hack.

I think it will be interesting to see what comes of legal challenges to this law in Texas and other states.

I think only the poor or an idiot ever goes to court without a lawyer.  And that’s an injustice of our system.

I don’t think people should get bounties for turning each other in.

I think our states and our nation needs to make better social programs for everyone bc it’s a failure of our society that anyone ever has to think their best choice is get rid of their child, unborn or born.

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Unfortunately, I think this year has made it perfectly clear that the government of Texas doesn't have even a little common sense. 

Well I certainly hope it will all come back to bite them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HeartString said:

A lawyer may not be strictly necessary to defend against something like this, but there is going to be a burden on a woman’s time.  Trying to represent yourself, figuring out how to submit paperwork yourself, taking unpaid l time off of work and maybe needing to  find childcare while a woman spends the day at the courthouse dealing with everything, that’s all a lot.
 

 Not to mention that in the case of this law in Texas you are going to be sued for helping someone else.  What if they don’t cooperate?  What if they aren’t under a doctors care, maybe they were never even pregnant.  Now you need them to go to their doctor, somehow prove they were never pregnant and give you that medical info?  Will their health insurance cover that, or does the person being sued need to cover it?  This is gonna get real messy real fast.  
 

A friend of mine DIYed her divorce and it took the 2 of them a whole day walking things placesat the court house to get paperwork figured out for something as simple as a non contested divorce. 

This just sickens me.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out though when even women who vehemently support the law have miscarriages...

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I think purposeful abortion should be illegal. We shouldn’t legalize purposely ending a life.  There’s no rational or logical or scientific argument to say that how they were created, their location, their size, their physical form (or deform) or mental acuity (or lack of it) removes any being’s humanness or disqualifies them from being treated as a person by fellow humans and the law.

I think there are occasions when the only way to save the physical life of a mother may sadly have the unintended affect of causing the unborn baby to die or be born too early to survive.  I think that sometimes babies die in utero and do not pass through in their own, those mothers need medical interventions.  

I think this law was intended to make “back alley medicine” practitioners face consequences. I’m not opposed to that. And since it’s what proabortionist have been screaming they feared would happen, I wouldn’t think anyone would be. 

That said. I think the law is crap. It’s too broad and too vague. And most people don’t even know what the medical definition of abortion is, so good luck getting the legal system to agree on it - which I suspect is why they made the law so vague.

But even worse. I think the ricochet political response could lead to federal legalization of any kind of abortion at any stage by any hack.

I think it will be interesting to see what comes of legal challenges to this law in Texas and other states.

I think only the poor or an idiot ever goes to court without a lawyer.  And that’s an injustice of our system.

I don’t think people should get bounties for turning each other in.

I think our states and our nation needs to make better social programs for everyone bc it’s a failure of our society that anyone ever has to think their best choice is get rid of their child, unborn or born.

The law wasn't intended to hurt "back alley" providers. It was intended to 'outsource' enforcing the law so they could get it through the Supreme Court. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, J-rap said:

This just sickens me.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out though when even women who vehemently support the law have miscarriages...

I doubt many of the supporters realized what was in the bill. 

This has to be prevented from spreading to other states so lawsuits must be initiated to make it clear how absurd this is. I suspect that vehement supporters might be victims of lawsuits. The law authorizes suing "innocent" people. I don't like that but that's what the law allows. And it has to be stopped. The only thing that will make it stop is if it's expensive for the wrong people. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MercyA said:

The law tells people they can't do things with their own bodies all the time. We can't drunk drive, we can't steal, we can't use illicit drugs, we can't kill other (born) human beings. Those laws don't make us less.

The issue is when a law says that only female people cannot do a thing. When a thing is a medical procedure that should be protected by Dr./Patient confidentiality laws and Privacy Laws. And that ANYONE can sue her for a perceived transgression.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I doubt many of the supporters realized what was in the bill. 

This has to be prevented from spreading to other states so lawsuits must be initiated to make it clear how absurd this is. I suspect that vehement supporters might be victims of lawsuits. The law authorizes suing "innocent" people. I don't like that but that's what the law allows. And it has to be stopped. The only thing that will make it stop is if it's expensive for the wrong people. 

 

It will spread to all the Republican states, and it's not just going to stay limited to abortion.  

Totalitarianism and fascism is here, probably to stay.  

  • Like 7
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

The law wasn't intended to hurt "back alley" providers. It was intended to 'outsource' enforcing the law so they could get it through the Supreme Court. 

It’s entirely possible it’s both. 

5 minutes ago, Terabith said:

It will spread to all the Republican states, and it's not just going to stay limited to abortion.  

Totalitarianism and fascism is here, probably to stay.  

Maybe. 

7 minutes ago, Lbmovingforward said:

The issue is when a law says that only female people cannot do a thing. When a thing is a medical procedure that should be protected by Dr./Patient confidentiality laws and Privacy Laws. And that ANYONE can sue her for a perceived transgression.  

Does it say that?  Does it punish ONLY females who facilitate abortions?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...