Fogbow

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:03 pm But I should’ve been more clear initially. Who, what, where should I make accusations? Do I need to name names, clinics, elected Republican officials? I don’t want to cause more grief for Planned Parenthood. Maybe some whack job RW targets?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:03 pm But I should’ve been more clear initially. Who, what, where should I make accusations? Do I need to name names, clinics, elected Republican officials? I don’t want to cause more grief for Planned Parenthood. Maybe some whack job RW targets?

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:53 pm It took Trump's actions on the pandemic to turn my Republican sister into a Biden voter. I wonder if Texas' and the Supreme Court's actions will similarly affect Republican women who support abortion choice.

filly wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:04 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:03 pm But I should’ve been more clear initially. Who, what, where should I make accusations? Do I need to name names, clinics, elected Republican officials? I don’t want to cause more grief for Planned Parenthood. Maybe some whack job RW targets?

I would not do this. The vigilantes who will go after anybody and everybody with this awful law will ultimately be protected but those who have control over the Texas courts (ultimately the Texas Supreme Court, a bunch of knuckle dragging haters) may just find a way to punish you. This law invites massive chaos but I would think long and hard before deciding to enter the fray.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:39 am My user name may explain this, but I can’t see how the content of this law can in any way whatsoever be considered constitutional. As others with more knowledge have pointed out, if it is allowed to stand equivalent laws could be enacted covering any activity a given legislature wish to attempt to curtail. I’m stunned and appalled.

Snark - do the Texas legislators have shares in the morning after pill?

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:12 pm Umm, I think I’m starting to get my head round some of this. Is it correct to say that the plaintiff in an action brought under this law has “standing” as they are pursuing a (possible) breach of it?
Even so I still don’t understand how a possibly totally unrelated and uninjured party can bring an action, unless they are doing so on behalf of, what I consider is the only “injured” party, the embryo. Colo(u)r me confused.

Patagoniagirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:03 pm I hope this isnt the wrong thread. But if I recall correctly, Gub. Abbot caught the 'Rona and took Regeneron. But for the life of me, I cant remember how Regeneron is made, and what it is made from.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:04 pm I’m still so confused. And I haven’t read the bill so I’m just picking up things I’ve seen on line, and I know that can be a problem accuracy wise, but here goes. If they’re counting six weeks from the last day of a woman’s period, The embryo isn’t six weeks along. The conception wouldn’t have been for approximately two more weeks, making the embryo only about four weeks along. Then there’s talk of “heartbeats “which are not actually heartbeats at that point, merely electrical activity that will eventually become the nervous system and the heart. So how do they document that there was or wasn’t a “heartbeat?” I don’t recall the exact percentage, but so many pregnancies abort themselves in the early weeks. If you can’t be accused of murdering somebody who was already dead, how can you be accused of murdering an embryo that was never viable? And may never become viable.

And then there’s the question of incomplete spontaneous abortions, which is what laypeople call miscarriages. They’re almost never complete, and require some sort of dilatation and curettage, which is exactly how you perform a therapeutic abortion. How many grieving women will be accused of murder? How many husbands will be sued for driving their bleeding wife to the hospital? How many people will be afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being turned in by some whack job?

A lot of these are rhetorical questions, I don’t expect there to be hard answers. I’m. just. so. Upset.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:04 pm A lot of these are rhetorical questions, I don’t expect there to be hard answers. I’m. just. so. Upset.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:04 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:03 pm But I should’ve been more clear initially. Who, what, where should I make accusations? Do I need to name names, clinics, elected Republican officials? I don’t want to cause more grief for Planned Parenthood. Maybe some whack job RW targets?

I just reported the legislature for manufacturing illegal alien homunculii via Dr. Frank N. Furter at the Androgyna Clinic in Austin.

Stonekettle reported human/rat hybrids through legislative ratfucking.

The only limit is your imagination.

neeneko wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:49 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:04 pm A lot of these are rhetorical questions, I don’t expect there to be hard answers. I’m. just. so. Upset.

I've been trying to read through the law so i can respond to other people, but my understanding is limited.

On the topic of how much sense the 'heartbeat' test makes, in the section going over valid defenses it treats it as 'guilty until proven innocent'. So the burden of proof is not on the litigant to show anything, but on the defendant to prove to the judge (jury?) that they did not violate the law. Otherwise 'but that is not a heartbeat' would probably be a good defense.

(f-1) The defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative
defense under Subsection (f)(1) or (2) by a preponderance of the
evidence.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:54 pm

neeneko wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:24 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:12 pm Umm, I think I’m starting to get my head round some of this. Is it correct to say that the plaintiff in an action brought under this law has “standing” as they are pursuing a (possible) breach of it?
Even so I still don’t understand how a possibly totally unrelated and uninjured party can bring an action, unless they are doing so on behalf of, what I consider is the only “injured” party, the embryo. Colo(u)r me confused.

Well, they can because the law says they can. The law states that anyone in Texas has standing to bring this suit against anyone they suspect of violating the 6 week ban.

neeneko wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:24 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:12 pm Umm, I think I’m starting to get my head round some of this. Is it correct to say that the plaintiff in an action brought under this law has “standing” as they are pursuing a (possible) breach of it?
Even so I still don’t understand how a possibly totally unrelated and uninjured party can bring an action, unless they are doing so on behalf of, what I consider is the only “injured” party, the embryo. Colo(u)r me confused.

Well, they can because the law says they can. The law states that anyone in Texas has standing to bring this suit against anyone they suspect of violating the 6 week ban.

Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who: