So much poorly messaged and inaccurate information from "fact-checked" mainstream media. - The words abortion bounty hunting is being thrown around now. There is no "bounty." It is a statutory minimum for a judgement rendered against a losing defendant. A bounty would be a prize from the state. - An abortion to save the life of a mother (or any other medical emergency (broad term) as determined by the treating physician), is specifically allowed under this new TX law. - Rape is still a crime, as well as a private civil cause of action (as is aiding, abetting, or encouraging one). A woman can always sue or press charges against her rapist, and seek damages. - A rash of suits against Uber drivers is highly unlikely, at best - And again, for the folks who got here late or are sitting in the back, A WOMAN WHO SEEKS AN ABORTION CANNOT BE SUED by a snitch or vigilante (or anybody else) under the new law. I give no effs and understand either way if people are for or against the law, but for crying out loud get the facts straight.
I'm not mad at Manchin personally. I mean, democrats barely have a majority, can't blame him for that.
A distinction without a difference. Kinda irrelevant to the abortion. Corporate says they're picking up the tab. And, with their lawyers, you're probably not winning a judgment against them anyhow. But I wouldn't mind if Uber was sued into oblivion.
Bounty is being used because people that have no ties to the abortion they are reporting can garner thousands of dollars for 'locating' the perpetrators. While the money will come from the defendants, it is perfectly reasonable to use the word bounty. Why are suits against ride share drivers (uber, lyft, taxi) unlikely? I suspect someone petty enough to be looking to cash in on an abortion they have nothing to do with will point the finger at every one they can.
This bullshit debate and now this action lines politician's pockets and empties mine. Thanks, 'Murica.
Voting Rights is far more important than the Abortion bill. It is the engine that drives everything. They fact that the demos have never really fought tooth and nail to protect the voting rights of the citizens like they do abortion is very telling. Because of voting restrictions. We will never know the will of the people. Rocket River
I hear that. On the flip side, the voting bill is a tiny erosion of ballot access that will only effect people at the margin. The abortion law effects basically everybody.
Those people at the margins .... If their votes were counted correctly ino Then other things like abortion rights would not be at risk Build a foundation instead Of constantly trying to balance the top Rocket River
The biggest issues with the onslaught of new gop state level bills isn't the new restrictions, it's the change in how state legislatures can remove election officials when they don't do their bidding. That is the scariest part about these new bills especially the Georgia one. I feel like Democrat talking heads are not framing the problem of these new voting restriction bills in the correct manner. They need to concentrate on those parts of the bills as they are far more damaging to democracy.
To a point .. . I am not sure they even want too The Democrats are too busy salivating over what they can do with that power once they are in office never thinking about it . . .it will not allow them to ever get in to the office Rocket River
the Joe Scarborough quote is just embarrassing. could probably just as well go in the "state media" thread but here it goes
**** I must have lost my way as I need an explanation if why it's embarrassing? Is the statistic wrong? Or is it something else? But always good for you for expressing your opinion explicitly rather than being cute because of narcissism.
I'll give you a hint. Try to find where in the US Constitution the right to abortion is specifically enumerated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/18/texas-abortion-provider-alan-braid/ Opinion: Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban Opinion by Alan Braid Yesterday at 4:01 p.m. EDT Alan Braid is a physician who provides abortion care in San Antonio. Newly graduated from the University of Texas medical school, I began my obstetrics and gynecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972. At the time, abortion was effectively illegal in Texas — unless a psychiatrist certified a woman was suicidal. If the woman had money, we’d refer her to clinics in Colorado, California or New York. The rest were on their own. Some traveled across the border to Mexico. At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions. One I will never forget. When she came into the ER, her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection. In medical school in Texas, we’d been taught that abortion was an integral part of women’s health care. When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973, recognizing abortion as a constitutional right, it enabled me to do the job I was trained to do. For the next 45 years — not including the two years I was away in the Air Force — I was a practicing OB/GYN in Texas, conducting Pap smears, pelvic exams and pregnancy check-ups; delivering more than 10,000 babies; and providing abortion care at clinics I opened in Houston and San Antonio, and another in Oklahoma. Then, this month, everything changed. A new Texas law, known as S.B. 8, virtually banned any abortion beyond about the sixth week of pregnancy. It shut down about 80 percent of the abortion services we provide. Anyone who suspects I have violated the new law can sue me for at least $10,000. They could also sue anybody who helps a person obtain an abortion past the new limit, including, apparently, the driver who brings a patient to my clinic. For me, it is 1972 all over again. And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care. I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested. Though we never ask why someone has come to our clinic, they often tell us. They’re finishing school or they already have three children, they’re in an abusive relationship, or it’s just not time. A majority are mothers. Most are between 18 and 30. Many are struggling financially — more than half qualify for some form of financial aid from us. Several times a month, a woman confides that she is having the abortion because she has been raped. Sometimes, she reports it to the police; more often, she doesn’t. Texas’s new law makes no exceptions for rape or incest. Even before S.B. 8, Texas had some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. That includes a 24-hour waiting period, meaning a woman has to make at least two visits to our clinic. Ultrasound imaging is mandatory. Parental consent is required for minors, unless they obtain court approval. And yet, despite the restrictions, we were always able to continue providing compassionate care up to the legal limit of 22 weeks. It meant hiring more staff, everything took longer, but we managed. Until Sept. 1. Since then, most of our patients have been too far along in their pregnancies to qualify for abortion care. I tell them that we can offer services only if we cannot see the presence of cardiac activity on an ultrasound, which usually occurs at about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant. The tension is unbearable as they lie there, waiting to hear their fate. If we detect cardiac activity, we have to refer them out of state. One of the women I talked with since the law took effect is 42. She has four kids, three under 12. I advised her that she could go to Oklahoma. That’s a nine-hour drive one way. I explained we could help with the funding. She told me she couldn’t go even if we flew her in a private jet. “Who’s going to take care of my kids?” she asked me. “What about my job? I can’t miss work.” I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8. I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces. I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.
LOL Stilley Texas doctor who violated near-total abortion ban faces lawsuit | The Texas Tribune A Texas doctor is being sued in two separate lawsuits for performing an abortion illegally under Texas’ new law that nearly bans the procedure, in what appears to be the first lawsuits tied to the statute. But one of the plaintiffs says he's not opposed to abortion and the other's lawsuit reportedly asks that the state's new abortion restrictions be ruled unconstitutional. In the copy of the suit he posted, Stilley described himself as a “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer.” Stilley, who was convicted of tax fraud in 2010, is suing Braid for $100,000. Stilley said in an interview that he's not personally opposed to abortion, and he doesn't think the law is necessarily a good one. However, he said he wants the $10,000 and will seek advice from anti-abortion organizations on how to best argue his case. If the law is struck down, he'll count it as a win to find out if the lawsuit has merit or not. "I'm not gonna let this thing fester so doctors are afraid. I want a prompt and honest decision," he said. "Let's find out if this thing is the law... if it is, let's live by it, if not let's get it struck down."
