Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,594 comments
  • 121,339 views
Not only am I pro-choice, but I also think there should be tax breaks for those who get abortions - at least insofar that it's cheaper for a local/state government to offer them, compared to subsidizing the existence of an unwanted individual. In other words, I propose making an economic argument in favor of abortions. The only morality that any sane person can follow is Kantianism - pure efficiency. Otherwise, why would Ferrari make an SUV? The more abortions, the more we can save our tax dollars.
 
Last edited:

I think I found it.

shooting star GIF
 


Rich Lowry is editor over at the National Review and his assertion that this law is in any way "correct" ought to tell you everything you need to know about the National Review. The only reasonable human being over there that I'm aware of is Jay Nordlinger.
 
Last edited:
In case you haven’t heard, Texas now has a law that makes it illegal for anyone to help women get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — and to take advantage of that, the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life is encouraging citizens to report those people at a dedicated “whistleblower” website, promising to “ensure that these lawbreakers are held accountable for their actions.”

However, it now looks like Texas Right to Life may have trouble keeping a home on the web, because hosting provider GoDaddy has given the group 24 hours to find a different place to park its website. “We have informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service,” a spokesperson told The New York Times and The Verge.

GoDaddy didn’t answer a question about whether that applies to the group’s other domains, but tells The Verge that it violated “multiple provisions” of the site’s Terms of Service including Section 5.2, which reads:
You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.
The anti-abortion group’s website has been under siege for days now, with angry protesters flooding it with fake tips — including at least one fake claim that Texas governor Greg Abbott himself had violated the law, according to NYT. One activist on TikTok even created a script that can automatically feed fake reports into the website’s tipbox, as Motherboard reported yesterday. He told the NYT that the automated tools he’d created had received over 15,000 clicks.

But on Wednesday, Gizmodo’s Shoshana Wodinsky suggested another way for activists to protest: blowing the whistle on Texas Right to Life itself, by complaining to GoDaddy about what it was doing. That’s what appears to have happened.

It’s not the first time web hosting providers or even GoDaddy specifically have played this role: Gab.com had to find a new home in October 2018, and GoDaddy took down white nationalist Richard Spencer’s Altright.com that May. Neo-nazi news site the Daily Stormer was similarly given 24 hours by GoDaddy to find a new home in August 2017, and wound up moving to the dark web instead. Gab was able to return, though, and it’s possible Texas Right to Life will find a solution as well.
 
Wah wah cancel culture big tech so much for the tolerant left 😭😭.

[EDIT] Update:
The Verge
By late Friday, it appears it found that home: Epik, the provider that also helped save controversial sites Gab, social media platform Parler, and internet hate forum 8chan when other web service providers wouldn’t take them, is now listed as the registrar for prolifewhistleblower.com as well.

The site is still having some trouble staying online though: as of 4AM ET Saturday, we saw HTTP 503 error codes when trying to access it. According to Ars Technica, it tried to use Digital Ocean as a hosting provider first, but may have fallen afoul of that provider’s rules as well and is not hosted there anymore.
 
Last edited:
In a cross over to gaming news, the President of publisher Tripwire have come out in favour of the Texas abortion law lunacy and unsurprisingly they are facing the consequences of his actions (awaits inaccurate shreeks of 'Cancel Culture).

 
Last edited:
Shame. I like the Killing Floor games, solid Horde-type gameplay & there's a server I play on that's modded a bit. I'll keep enjoying it, but I won't be buying a 3rd title or any of their other games then.
 
In a cross over to gaming news, the President of publisher Tripwire have come out in favour of the Texas abortion law lunacy and unsurprisingly they are facing the consequences of his actions (awaits inaccurate shreeks of 'Cancel Culture).

I am shocked that a male gaming developer is anti-woman. Shocked! Well not that shocked.
 
Does anyone know if there is a limit to how many suits can be filed against a particular subject in one of these cases? Like if a driver knowingly provides a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic...can they just be sued into oblivion by every resident in Texas?
 
Does anyone know if there is a limit to how many suits can be filed against a particular subject in one of these cases? Like if a driver knowingly provides a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic...can they just be sued into oblivion by every resident in Texas?
I'd like to know as well.
 
I'd like to know as well.
If there is a one suit per subject per case limit, wouldn't there be a seemingly obvious loophole that the woman seeking the abortion pre-emptively or at least immediately after sues the providers and then just doesn't claim the money? I don't remember any text of the "law" specifically prohibiting the woman seeking the abortion from suing. Of course there's nothing there to say that the woman couldn't get the abortion and then actually sue for the $10,000 so I can see a situation developing where abortion providers require an up-front $10,000 deposit that is credited back after the procedure. That's a steep hurdle for most Americans, so of course, a middle man will appear in the form of abortion bonds from probably the same establishments that offer bail bonds.
 
Does anyone know if there is a limit to how many suits can be filed against a particular subject in one of these cases? Like if a driver knowingly provides a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic...can they just be sued into oblivion by every resident in Texas?
I don’t think there is any limit because the law isn’t based on any sound legal principles. They are not interested in justice, they are interested in oppression and suppression. It’s basically a form of tyranny.
 
Does anyone know if there is a limit to how many suits can be filed against a particular subject in one of these cases? Like if a driver knowingly provides a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic...can they just be sued into oblivion by every resident in Texas?
I'm wondering if said case would qualify as a class action lawsuit.
 
I'm wondering if said case would qualify as a class action lawsuit.
Even assuming that somehow multiple people can sue the same entity involved with assisting the abortion*, and even assuming that the law stands*, I still have to think that there will be some application of a standard of harm required to have standing to bring such a suit. The idea that you're automatically harmed by someone else's abortion, just because you exist and they exist, is extra weird for legal interpretation. If that were the case, the entire state of texas could participate in every wrongful death (including traffic accidents) civil suit that exists.

Edit: There's another wrinkle, which is whether total damages are capped for any sued entity assisting with the abortion.

*these are both major assumptions
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know if there is a limit to how many suits can be filed against a particular subject in one of these cases? Like if a driver knowingly provides a ride to a woman to an abortion clinic...can they just be sued into oblivion by every resident in Texas?
Probably not, because it doesn't seem like something that actually intended to work in real life. It seems like something that was designed to be intentionally ludicrous so that it gets challenged at the first opportunity, is unable to be resolved cleanly at lower courts because it's so bat **** insane, at which point it will be ridden all the way up to the Supreme Court where they can take their chance to get Roe v. Wade overturned. At that point they can introduce an actual workable law restricting abortion and not expect to have it immediately thrown out.

I assume the reason this one hasn't been immediately thrown out is that it's so weird that it's unclear exactly how it's wrong - even though at first glance it feels like a law that totally shouldn't be able to exist within a fair legal system (even one that did make abortion illegal).

I'm wondering if said case would qualify as a class action lawsuit.
The Residents of the State of Texas versus Mary Smith's Vagina.

Everyone mail in to put your name down for twenty bucks from Mary's criminal bajingo. :lol:
 
Even assuming that somehow multiple people can sue the same entity involved with assisting the abortion*, and even assuming that the law stands*, I still have to think that there will be some application of a standard of harm required to have standing to bring such a suit. The idea that you're automatically harmed by someone else's abortion, just because you exist and they exist, is extra weird for legal interpretation. If that were the case, the entire state of texas could participate in every wrongful death (including traffic accidents) civil suit that exists.

Edit: There's another wrinkle, which is whether total damages are capped for any sued entity assisting with the abortion.

*these are both major assumptions

I mean there is significant harm being done right now, so the idea of watching it play out is morbid at best but I am interested to see where this goes. Could one countersue in federal court I wonder?
 
I mean there is significant harm being done right now

Oh I know. I have a friend in Texas whose relative is an abortion provider. My friend tells me that her relative is already denying patients who are only days past the requirement for the law. The situation, as described to me on the ground in Afghan...Texas is devastating for everyone involved.

There are kinda two versions (and everything in between of course) that can play out with this if the law were allowed to stand. One is that everyone is considered automatically harmed by any abortion - and so they can bring a suit against anyone assisting an abortion. That would be weird as I mentioned above.

Another version would be that only people who could actually show harm could do it. So like for example a boyfriend whose prospective child was aborted, a parent whose prospective grandchild was aborted, or a rapist who really wanted their rape victim to give birth to their offspring because they're sacks of feces. That would make implementation of this law quite a bit more narrow.
, so the idea of watching it play out is morbid at best but I am interested to see where this goes. Could one countersue in federal court I wonder?
No clue on that one.
 
I wonder how the GOP would react if, say, California did the same over gun ownership.

I feel it would be rather predictable
 
Last edited:

"(b)If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award: (1)injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter; (2)statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 H.B.ANo.A1515 6 in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; and (3)costs and attorney ’s fees."

"(c)Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid statutory damages in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter."

This makes it look to me like the damages are entirely punitive, so in my previous post where I was wonder whether someone had to show harm, it seems like maybe not. Also it looks like you cannot be sued twice for the same abortion. That being said, I highlighted text that indicates that statutory damages are $10,000 minimum not maximum. If the court determines that $10,000 may not "prevent the defendant from violating this chapter", they may go much higher.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back