The Texas Abortion Law

The law regarding abortion 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 abortion. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the abortion 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 abortion 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 abortion.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where blacks 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 riot 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 abortion 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-abortion 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 recoup 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-abortion 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.

Oh my! You make assumptions without knowing me or any thoughts/ideas of mine.
First, I abhor murder of any kind, including executions of criminals. But just because I don't like it, that doesn't mean that there are instances where it could be justified.
First, murder in self-defense. This is a no-brainer.
Second, there is a case to be made for the so-called "Death with Dignity", for terminally ill patients to request that they be terminated.
Third, the case here, where we have to put the life of the fetus versus the health and well-being of the mother. If the fetus is malformed or has been diagnosed with severe mental problems that will prevent it from ever being a productive human, it's a problem. It would require round-the-clock care and is unable to perform the basic functions of living in the society. This puts an immense burden on the family that they may not be able to sustain. If this is the case, there should be an exception to the 'right to life' principle.
Fourth, the case where rape or incest has caused the pregnancy. There is no justification for requiring a woman to bear the child of their assailant. Period. End of story.

I would not support 'abortion on demand', but the economic and family conditions that the child would be born into should be taken into account, and either adoption or foster care implemented, if the law requires.
Just concentrating on the narrow act of abortion alone is treating a symptom, not the cause ... and it is a broader societal ill that has to be addressed. How we make the system work for the good of the children being born is an answer, but just outlawing abortion totally isn't the answer either. That takes us back to "back alley abortions" and the dangerous procedures that took many a woman's life. That is just as unacceptable as the "abortion on demand" precept. Let's try to be realistic about this whole thing, and not just outlaw abortion and walk away when the child is born, leaving the family to cope with an additional mouth to feed or child requiring constant care.
Just my thoughts, your mileage may vary.

The Texas Abortion Law

The law regarding abortion 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 abortion. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the abortion 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 abortion 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 abortion.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where blacks 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 riot 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 abortion 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-abortion 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 recoup 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-abortion 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 Abortion Law

The law regarding abortion 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 abortion. This 'vigilante' provision allows anyone, privy to the facts or not, to sue any and all people surrounding the abortion 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 abortion 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 abortion.
The whole issue of creating 'vigilantes' harkens back to the lynch mobs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where blacks 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 riot 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 abortion 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-abortion 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 recoup 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-abortion 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.

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.