The Texas A******n Law & a remedy: The Texas A******n Law The law regarding a******n just effectuated in Texas is superbly written so as to sidestep almost every facet of challenging...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

The Texas A******n Law

The law regarding a******n just effectuated in Texas is superbly written so as to sidestep almost every facet of challenging it in court.
It makes no agency or official of the government responsible for enforcing it. It absolves them from any responsibility whatsoever. In its' place, it deputizes virtually the entire population of the United States to sue, with or without evidence, anyone connected with the provision of any a******n. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the a******n act itself for abetting the act, or EVEN THINKING ABOUT DOING SO. Mere suspicion is allowed as a basis for the lawsuit. This may generate multiple nuisance lawsuits for the same act, and could clog the court system for years.
While intent is the almost impossible thing to prove, what this law does is to terrify anyone involved with the possibility of endless lawsuits and the consequent legal fees to defend one's self. Even worse, if the plaintiff (complainer) wins, you get hit with a $10,000 fine AND their legal fees. If you win you get - nada, zip, zilch, nothing … and you're still stuck with your own legal fees. As you can see, these suits are not designed to win, but are specifically designed to bankrupt anyone that contributes to the a******n itself. It is notable that the woman herself is not subject to any of this, thus evading the problem of running into the provisions of Roe vs. Wade and its guarantee of the right of a******n.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where b****s were routinely taken out of jails or just picked up and then tortured and hung without any proof of guilt. The 'lynchers' then were fueled by religious zeal and a 'white power' mentality. The Greenwood r**t in Tulsa is a prime example of this kind of thinking. This law basically promotes the same kind of zeal in the citizenry being able to take things into their own hands and actually use the mechanics of the legal system to suppress a******n with the state taking a 'hands off' stance. This avoids the issue of the federal government suing the state, since the state is not responsible for enforcing it. Carefully crafted, it is.
It may well prove to be impossible to overturn, save the Texas Legislature flipping and repealing the law. The probability of this happening is between infinitesimal and zero.

The Republican Party has long been the champion of individual rights and less intrusive government. Their opposition to the New Deal legislation of the Roosevelt presidency is just as strong today as it was seventy years ago. And yet, here we are, intruding on the most private of acts, with governmental action that has profound and lasting effects on the woman and her family. What could be more hypocritical than this?
The advocates of the law and are anti-a******n are rabid about the idea that there are two people involved here … the woman and the fetus, which they claim to be a living person and a citizen of the country with rights. The validity of this argument can be argued both ways, citing the "life, liberty and happiness" clause of the Declaration of Independence or conflicting scientific evidence on both sides. That phrase does not appear in the Constitution, however, and the Declaration is not a binding legal document in that respect.
Since it is dubious that the law will be repealed, there has to be some kind of remedy for those abetting the woman to rec**p the costs that will be incurred. After all, in any other civil suit, the losing side pays the costs of the winning side's legal fees. Not here. If the law is not stayed or repealed, the only winners in this whole shebang are the lawyers (unless someone cops the $10k bounty).

There is another remedy that could be invoked, however, that will make it just as bad on the 'vigilante' invoking the lawsuit, as it would be for the person that they are suing.
Since they are forcing the woman to take the child to term, let them be individually responsible for taking the child as their own, and raising it to maturity. It is only fair that they bear some responsibility for preventing the woman from aborting the fetus, by taking responsibility for the child once it is born.
The anti-a******n folks will scream that the woman had the choice to get pregnant or not. This does not take into account the large number of cases where there was rape or incest involved, and the woman did not have that choice.
The anti-choice advocates also do not take into account the status of the child after birth, being many times born into a situation of poverty, cruelty, and a totally poverty-stricken existence. This is not fair to the child in any sense. It may be sentenced to a life of being un-loved in a totally dysfunctional family, with the outcome bleak. And yet the anti-choicers wash their hands of the whole thing after the child is born, and walk off congratulating themselves that they saved another life. I would ask, "what kind of life?"
They also do not take into account the life or health of the woman. While there are provisions in the bill that vaguely try to cover this aspect, it is doubtful that they could be invoked.
In any case, the individuals (vigilantes) who will take advantage of this law should also have to bear responsibility for that child that they forced into life. It is only fair. I can hear the cries of non-responsibility already from the plaintiffs … "I'm only enforcing the law that the legislature passed." This is the Nuremberg defense raised by the defendants at the war crimes trials after the Second World War. "I was only following orders." That didn't work out too well for the them. How history repeats itself.
This alternative, since the law is probably not going away for a long while, is the only way to achieve fairness for all the people that the law will hurt. But I fear that "fairness" in this respect is a one-way street.

Wonttakeitanymore

whitnebrat wrote:

The Texas A******n Law

The law regarding a******n just effectuated in Texas is superbly written so as to sidestep almost every facet of challenging it in court.
It makes no agency or official of the government responsible for enforcing it. It absolves them from any responsibility whatsoever. In its' place, it deputizes virtually the entire population of the United States to sue, with or without evidence, anyone connected with the provision of any a******n. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the a******n act itself for abetting the act, or EVEN THINKING ABOUT DOING SO. Mere suspicion is allowed as a basis for the lawsuit. This may generate multiple nuisance lawsuits for the same act, and could clog the court system for years.
While intent is the almost impossible thing to prove, what this law does is to terrify anyone involved with the possibility of endless lawsuits and the consequent legal fees to defend one's self. Even worse, if the plaintiff (complainer) wins, you get hit with a $10,000 fine AND their legal fees. If you win you get - nada, zip, zilch, nothing … and you're still stuck with your own legal fees. As you can see, these suits are not designed to win, but are specifically designed to bankrupt anyone that contributes to the a******n itself. It is notable that the woman herself is not subject to any of this, thus evading the problem of running into the provisions of Roe vs. Wade and its guarantee of the right of a******n.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where b****s were routinely taken out of jails or just picked up and then tortured and hung without any proof of guilt. The 'lynchers' then were fueled by religious zeal and a 'white power' mentality. The Greenwood r**t in Tulsa is a prime example of this kind of thinking. This law basically promotes the same kind of zeal in the citizenry being able to take things into their own hands and actually use the mechanics of the legal system to suppress a******n with the state taking a 'hands off' stance. This avoids the issue of the federal government suing the state, since the state is not responsible for enforcing it. Carefully crafted, it is.
It may well prove to be impossible to overturn, save the Texas Legislature flipping and repealing the law. The probability of this happening is between infinitesimal and zero.

The Republican Party has long been the champion of individual rights and less intrusive government. Their opposition to the New Deal legislation of the Roosevelt presidency is just as strong today as it was seventy years ago. And yet, here we are, intruding on the most private of acts, with governmental action that has profound and lasting effects on the woman and her family. What could be more hypocritical than this?
The advocates of the law and are anti-a******n are rabid about the idea that there are two people involved here … the woman and the fetus, which they claim to be a living person and a citizen of the country with rights. The validity of this argument can be argued both ways, citing the "life, liberty and happiness" clause of the Declaration of Independence or conflicting scientific evidence on both sides. That phrase does not appear in the Constitution, however, and the Declaration is not a binding legal document in that respect.
Since it is dubious that the law will be repealed, there has to be some kind of remedy for those abetting the woman to rec**p the costs that will be incurred. After all, in any other civil suit, the losing side pays the costs of the winning side's legal fees. Not here. If the law is not stayed or repealed, the only winners in this whole shebang are the lawyers (unless someone cops the $10k bounty).

There is another remedy that could be invoked, however, that will make it just as bad on the 'vigilante' invoking the lawsuit, as it would be for the person that they are suing.
Since they are forcing the woman to take the child to term, let them be individually responsible for taking the child as their own, and raising it to maturity. It is only fair that they bear some responsibility for preventing the woman from aborting the fetus, by taking responsibility for the child once it is born.
The anti-a******n folks will scream that the woman had the choice to get pregnant or not. This does not take into account the large number of cases where there was rape or incest involved, and the woman did not have that choice.
The anti-choice advocates also do not take into account the status of the child after birth, being many times born into a situation of poverty, cruelty, and a totally poverty-stricken existence. This is not fair to the child in any sense. It may be sentenced to a life of being un-loved in a totally dysfunctional family, with the outcome bleak. And yet the anti-choicers wash their hands of the whole thing after the child is born, and walk off congratulating themselves that they saved another life. I would ask, "what kind of life?"
They also do not take into account the life or health of the woman. While there are provisions in the bill that vaguely try to cover this aspect, it is doubtful that they could be invoked.
In any case, the individuals (vigilantes) who will take advantage of this law should also have to bear responsibility for that child that they forced into life. It is only fair. I can hear the cries of non-responsibility already from the plaintiffs … "I'm only enforcing the law that the legislature passed." This is the Nuremberg defense raised by the defendants at the war crimes trials after the Second World War. "I was only following orders." That didn't work out too well for the them. How history repeats itself.
This alternative, since the law is probably not going away for a long while, is the only way to achieve fairness for all the people that the law will hurt. But I fear that "fairness" in this respect is a one-way street.

The Texas A******n Law br br The law regarding... (show quote)

These women will have to find another way for birth control! Are I part of the satanic cult to destroy human lives? All l***s m****r!

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Wonttakeitanymore wrote:

These women will have to find another way for birth control! Are I part of the satanic cult to destroy human lives? All l***s m****r!

You willing to take responsibility for the child once it's born?

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

whitnebrat wrote:

You willing to take responsibility for the child once it's born?

That's the stupidest angle. Try again.
How about having responsible sexual relationships..
Sex ain't for fun just because it feels good.
That's i***t logic

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

whitnebrat wrote:

The Texas A******n Law

The law regarding a******n just effectuated in Texas is superbly written so as to sidestep almost every facet of challenging it in court.
It makes no agency or official of the government responsible for enforcing it. It absolves them from any responsibility whatsoever. In its' place, it deputizes virtually the entire population of the United States to sue, with or without evidence, anyone connected with the provision of any a******n. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the a******n act itself for abetting the act, or EVEN THINKING ABOUT DOING SO. Mere suspicion is allowed as a basis for the lawsuit. This may generate multiple nuisance lawsuits for the same act, and could clog the court system for years.
While intent is the almost impossible thing to prove, what this law does is to terrify anyone involved with the possibility of endless lawsuits and the consequent legal fees to defend one's self. Even worse, if the plaintiff (complainer) wins, you get hit with a $10,000 fine AND their legal fees. If you win you get - nada, zip, zilch, nothing … and you're still stuck with your own legal fees. As you can see, these suits are not designed to win, but are specifically designed to bankrupt anyone that contributes to the a******n itself. It is notable that the woman herself is not subject to any of this, thus evading the problem of running into the provisions of Roe vs. Wade and its guarantee of the right of a******n.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where b****s were routinely taken out of jails or just picked up and then tortured and hung without any proof of guilt. The 'lynchers' then were fueled by religious zeal and a 'white power' mentality. The Greenwood r**t in Tulsa is a prime example of this kind of thinking. This law basically promotes the same kind of zeal in the citizenry being able to take things into their own hands and actually use the mechanics of the legal system to suppress a******n with the state taking a 'hands off' stance. This avoids the issue of the federal government suing the state, since the state is not responsible for enforcing it. Carefully crafted, it is.
It may well prove to be impossible to overturn, save the Texas Legislature flipping and repealing the law. The probability of this happening is between infinitesimal and zero.

The Republican Party has long been the champion of individual rights and less intrusive government. Their opposition to the New Deal legislation of the Roosevelt presidency is just as strong today as it was seventy years ago. And yet, here we are, intruding on the most private of acts, with governmental action that has profound and lasting effects on the woman and her family. What could be more hypocritical than this?
The advocates of the law and are anti-a******n are rabid about the idea that there are two people involved here … the woman and the fetus, which they claim to be a living person and a citizen of the country with rights. The validity of this argument can be argued both ways, citing the "life, liberty and happiness" clause of the Declaration of Independence or conflicting scientific evidence on both sides. That phrase does not appear in the Constitution, however, and the Declaration is not a binding legal document in that respect.
Since it is dubious that the law will be repealed, there has to be some kind of remedy for those abetting the woman to rec**p the costs that will be incurred. After all, in any other civil suit, the losing side pays the costs of the winning side's legal fees. Not here. If the law is not stayed or repealed, the only winners in this whole shebang are the lawyers (unless someone cops the $10k bounty).

There is another remedy that could be invoked, however, that will make it just as bad on the 'vigilante' invoking the lawsuit, as it would be for the person that they are suing.
Since they are forcing the woman to take the child to term, let them be individually responsible for taking the child as their own, and raising it to maturity. It is only fair that they bear some responsibility for preventing the woman from aborting the fetus, by taking responsibility for the child once it is born.
The anti-a******n folks will scream that the woman had the choice to get pregnant or not. This does not take into account the large number of cases where there was rape or incest involved, and the woman did not have that choice.
The anti-choice advocates also do not take into account the status of the child after birth, being many times born into a situation of poverty, cruelty, and a totally poverty-stricken existence. This is not fair to the child in any sense. It may be sentenced to a life of being un-loved in a totally dysfunctional family, with the outcome bleak. And yet the anti-choicers wash their hands of the whole thing after the child is born, and walk off congratulating themselves that they saved another life. I would ask, "what kind of life?"
They also do not take into account the life or health of the woman. While there are provisions in the bill that vaguely try to cover this aspect, it is doubtful that they could be invoked.
In any case, the individuals (vigilantes) who will take advantage of this law should also have to bear responsibility for that child that they forced into life. It is only fair. I can hear the cries of non-responsibility already from the plaintiffs … "I'm only enforcing the law that the legislature passed." This is the Nuremberg defense raised by the defendants at the war crimes trials after the Second World War. "I was only following orders." That didn't work out too well for the them. How history repeats itself.
This alternative, since the law is probably not going away for a long while, is the only way to achieve fairness for all the people that the law will hurt. But I fear that "fairness" in this respect is a one-way street.

The Texas A******n Law br br The law regarding... (show quote)

I don't like my 9 year old kid. I won't k**l it if you agree to take it in, and pay for it until it's 18th birthday. OK?

What's better.... a rough life or no life?

Gatsby

whitnebrat wrote:

You willing to take responsibility for the child once it's born?

Feeble

You can rest assured that would be a long waiting list of couples eager to adopt a newborn.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

wtroxell wrote:

I don't like my 9 year old kid. I won't k**l it if you agree to take it in, and pay for it until it's 18th birthday. OK?

What's better.... a rough life or no life?

Lousy analogy. Your kid isn't being forced into the world, and you're responsible for them.
Sometimes, no life is better. But I must admit that there are exceptions to your statement. We don't know the future, and you're going to counter that it's true for every life. But that should be a decision by the woman and her doctor and family. Murder, it ain't by any standard, except maybe by a religious one.
Bringing a kid into the world that is highly dysfunctional and has no hope of a "life" as we know it isn't fair to the kid or the family.
Would you like to raise a kid which was forced to be born that was the result of a forcible rape on your wife? Hmmm ... I think not.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Gatsby wrote:

Feeble

You can rest assured that would be a long waiting list of couples eager to adopt a newborn.

I'm not so sure about that. Try getting a baby born to a crack-addicted mother adopted. Or a minority child. Your premise isn't borne about except for healthy white babies. Check the statistics.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

whitnebrat wrote:

Lousy analogy. Your kid isn't being forced into th... (show quote)

The analogy is perfect. If you can abort your viable fetal baby, how is that any different than whacking your 9 year old.

Nobody wants to raise children in a dysfunctional situation. If you are in such a situation, don’t have a kid…… that’s easy to prevent.

I think most of the millions of aborted children might have taken a chance on life, had they the chance.

I think that early a******n is tolerable. That takes care of rape. If you’ve been raped, pregnancy would not be a surprise and would be detectable and terminated within 6 weeks or detectable heartbeat.

There are plenty of potential extraneous circumstances where a******n might be a reasonable solution. To make any a******n, at any time, for any reason is not ok.

We’ve already seen viable babies born despite a botched a******n attempt, being k**led later after a patient/doctor discussion. If that’s ok, so is k*****g a 1 day old or 9 year old……..because it’s convenient.

If you want to minimize any activity, make it difficult and expensive. If you want to encourage activity, make it easy and cheap.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

The Texas A******n Law

The law regarding a******n just effectuated in Texas is superbly written so as to sidestep almost every facet of challenging it in court.
It makes no agency or official of the government responsible for enforcing it. It absolves them from any responsibility whatsoever. In its' place, it deputizes virtually the entire population of the United States to sue, with or without evidence, anyone connected with the provision of any a******n. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the a******n act itself for abetting the act, or EVEN THINKING ABOUT DOING SO. Mere suspicion is allowed as a basis for the lawsuit. This may generate multiple nuisance lawsuits for the same act, and could clog the court system for years.
While intent is the almost impossible thing to prove, what this law does is to terrify anyone involved with the possibility of endless lawsuits and the consequent legal fees to defend one's self. Even worse, if the plaintiff (complainer) wins, you get hit with a $10,000 fine AND their legal fees. If you win you get - nada, zip, zilch, nothing … and you're still stuck with your own legal fees. As you can see, these suits are not designed to win, but are specifically designed to bankrupt anyone that contributes to the a******n itself. It is notable that the woman herself is not subject to any of this, thus evading the problem of running into the provisions of Roe vs. Wade and its guarantee of the right of a******n.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where b****s were routinely taken out of jails or just picked up and then tortured and hung without any proof of guilt. The 'lynchers' then were fueled by religious zeal and a 'white power' mentality. The Greenwood r**t in Tulsa is a prime example of this kind of thinking. This law basically promotes the same kind of zeal in the citizenry being able to take things into their own hands and actually use the mechanics of the legal system to suppress a******n with the state taking a 'hands off' stance. This avoids the issue of the federal government suing the state, since the state is not responsible for enforcing it. Carefully crafted, it is.
It may well prove to be impossible to overturn, save the Texas Legislature flipping and repealing the law. The probability of this happening is between infinitesimal and zero.

The Republican Party has long been the champion of individual rights and less intrusive government. Their opposition to the New Deal legislation of the Roosevelt presidency is just as strong today as it was seventy years ago. And yet, here we are, intruding on the most private of acts, with governmental action that has profound and lasting effects on the woman and her family. What could be more hypocritical than this?
The advocates of the law and are anti-a******n are rabid about the idea that there are two people involved here … the woman and the fetus, which they claim to be a living person and a citizen of the country with rights. The validity of this argument can be argued both ways, citing the "life, liberty and happiness" clause of the Declaration of Independence or conflicting scientific evidence on both sides. That phrase does not appear in the Constitution, however, and the Declaration is not a binding legal document in that respect.
Since it is dubious that the law will be repealed, there has to be some kind of remedy for those abetting the woman to rec**p the costs that will be incurred. After all, in any other civil suit, the losing side pays the costs of the winning side's legal fees. Not here. If the law is not stayed or repealed, the only winners in this whole shebang are the lawyers (unless someone cops the $10k bounty).

There is another remedy that could be invoked, however, that will make it just as bad on the 'vigilante' invoking the lawsuit, as it would be for the person that they are suing.
Since they are forcing the woman to take the child to term, let them be individually responsible for taking the child as their own, and raising it to maturity. It is only fair that they bear some responsibility for preventing the woman from aborting the fetus, by taking responsibility for the child once it is born.
The anti-a******n folks will scream that the woman had the choice to get pregnant or not. This does not take into account the large number of cases where there was rape or incest involved, and the woman did not have that choice.
The anti-choice advocates also do not take into account the status of the child after birth, being many times born into a situation of poverty, cruelty, and a totally poverty-stricken existence. This is not fair to the child in any sense. It may be sentenced to a life of being un-loved in a totally dysfunctional family, with the outcome bleak. And yet the anti-choicers wash their hands of the whole thing after the child is born, and walk off congratulating themselves that they saved another life. I would ask, "what kind of life?"
They also do not take into account the life or health of the woman. While there are provisions in the bill that vaguely try to cover this aspect, it is doubtful that they could be invoked.
In any case, the individuals (vigilantes) who will take advantage of this law should also have to bear responsibility for that child that they forced into life. It is only fair. I can hear the cries of non-responsibility already from the plaintiffs … "I'm only enforcing the law that the legislature passed." This is the Nuremberg defense raised by the defendants at the war crimes trials after the Second World War. "I was only following orders." That didn't work out too well for the them. How history repeats itself.
This alternative, since the law is probably not going away for a long while, is the only way to achieve fairness for all the people that the law will hurt. But I fear that "fairness" in this respect is a one-way street.

The Texas A******n Law br br The law regarding... (show quote)

How have you been???

This almost makes a good case for allowing parents to euthanize their children if they are unable to care for them....

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

Lousy analogy. Your kid isn't being forced into th... (show quote)

I wouldn't like it...

But I would love the child...

Just me...

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

I wouldn't like it...

But I would love the child...

Just me...

Me too, I think and hope. Until I’m faced with it, I can’t be sure.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

wtroxell wrote:

Me too, I think and hope. Until I’m faced with it, I can’t be sure.

Pretty sure murdering the child wouldn't be the right answer....

Although I would love a few minutes of uninterrupted interaction with the rapist

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

How have you been???

This almost makes a good case for allowing parents to euthanize their children if they are unable to care for them....

Many "uncivilized" societies do so even now. If the tribe/group can't support the child, the entire tribe suffers, thus that result. Some Alaskan natives used to put their elders that got sick or dementia on ice floes with a week's worth of food and let them drift out to sea, because the tribe couldn't afford the supplies and effort to keep them alive. Cold hearted but true.
Also, is there any rationale for forcing fetuses to term that suffer known defects that will require that they have 24 hour care for as long as they live other than the fact that it is a human life? This puts an immense burden (not all economic) on families that doesn't have to happen.

We have been good here ... luckily there haven't been any fires within a hundred miles of here, but we get the smoke on a daily basis. Somebody recently said that you could hang a side of pork outside for a week and you'd have smoked pork for the winter.
Hope all is well with you.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

Many "uncivilized" societies do so even now. If the tribe/group can't support the child, the entire tribe suffers, thus that result.

We have been good here ... luckily there haven't been any fires within a hundred miles of here, but we get the smoke on a daily basis. Somebody recently said that you could hang a side of pork outside for a week and you'd have smoked pork for the winter.
Hope all is well with you.

All is fine here...

BC and Alberta are getting bad fires again this year too...

Yep... Society is rarely kind to its weakest members...