Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#51

Post by [deleted] »

bobthechef wrote: post #35
fabian2k wrote: post #10

This law is quite insane, and it seems entirely rational to oppose your drivers being liable simply for driving woman to a clinic.

Don’t be ridiculous. The whole thing about this potentially causing problems for women going in for an innocent appointment is a smokescreen, just like using edge cases to justify abortion as a whole (the way to test this is to ask whether such a person would agree to restricting abortion to just those cases). The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure a…

[deleted]

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#52

Post by UncleMeat »

thih9 wrote: post #27
fabian2k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand that's one of the more insane parts of this law. You don't need to show you suffered any harm or loss, absolutely anyone can sue under this law.

This seems ridiculous, to the point that I feel like I'm missing something. Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single person? If the person proves that there was no abortion, who covers the legal fees? Would it be possible to bait people into suing, get expensive lawyers and then provide proof that there was no abortion?

> Does that mean that multiple people can sue a single person?

Yes, the bill enables thousands of suits to be filed, even if frivolous, against abortion providers.

> If the person proves that there was no abortion, who covers the legal fees?

The bill explicitly covers the fees of the person bringing the suit, but provides no means for the person being sued to recover legal costs.

The combination of these two facts means that operating a clinic that even is abortion adjacent will no longer be economically viable.

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#55

Post by cforrester »

bobthechef wrote: post #35
fabian2k wrote: post #10

This law is quite insane, and it seems entirely rational to oppose your drivers being liable simply for driving woman to a clinic.

Don’t be ridiculous. The whole thing about this potentially causing problems for women going in for an innocent appointment is a smokescreen, just like using edge cases to justify abortion as a whole (the way to test this is to ask whether such a person would agree to restricting abortion to just those cases). The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure a…

> The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple.

I haven't seen anyone deny that the main issue is unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. It's certainly valid to discuss the recklessness of the law's coercive mechanisms and their broader, negative side effects on unrelated groups.

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#56

Post by heavenlyblue »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #34
throwawayboise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't live in Texas so not really paying attention to this, but normally a lawsuit is filed when one has suffered a loss or harm. How does a third party claim any loss or harm giving him standing to sue in this situation?

Technically, there are some ways to demonstrate loss of harm. For example, imagine the father of the potential kid, not agreeing with the abortion, can make a reasonable claim. The abortion has this ugly side, the father has zero rights. This is why I cannot agree with any side, pro-abortionists are wrong in some points, pro-lifers are wrong in some points and there is no effort to make it right, from any side. Such…

Does that imply that the fathers should be always financially liable for paying for the ongoing pregnancy or are you just speaking your mind without thinking of how that can affect women?

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#57

Post by gjsman-1000 »

belltaco wrote: post #18

> 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: (1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter; (2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for…

This law accomplishes a few things that people are missing:

1. A stark reminder that pro-lifers aren't giving up, and that 48 years of fighting later, they are stronger and getting stronger over time. And that the pro-abortion side should take notice.

2. A law that, even though it will almost inevitably fail, in the eyes of pro-lifers, several dozen children will be saved (due to inability to get abortions) and thus it is worth throwing the curveball regardless of the method.

3. A law that does a great job at getting pro-abortion women into placing blame on the Biden administration as inept and unable to stop Republicans effectively, hurting morale among his voter base, while boosting morale of Republicans to have gotten an even-temporary win after, what, 48 years of fighting? It can also be a political tactic.

4. Remember that ~50% of Republicans are women. This isn't all just angry men who like controlling women, and the pro-abortion side isn't very effective at reaching them.

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#58

Post by paulgb »

MisterSandman wrote: post #40
viraptor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not disagreeing with the law being insane, but the difference there is that cab drivers drop you off / pick you up from a specific address. The other options are mass transport which takes you to the general area only, so they have no information where you're going.

I'm curious, though, can an Uber driver be sued if they happen to take a passenger to a school and the passenger commits a mass shooting? How would the driver even know the women is pregnant or going to get an abortion? It's not like there are clinics that ONLY do abortions.

> How would the driver even know the women is pregnant or going to get an abortion? It's not like there are clinics that ONLY do abortions.

Ah, but that's the point. Any clinic that even thinks of performing an abortion will become a social pariah out of fear of repercussions.

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#59

Post by flailingroof »

version_five wrote: post #44
AdrianB1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one side. So what is the point?

That's a failing of democracy isn't it. One optimum is to make it so the only people in your jurisdiction are those that all want the same thing. This is an argument for a strong constitution and court system and against direct democracy.

It's certainly a failing of the flawed US democracy, but fortunately there are much better ways to implement democracies.

Re: Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

#60

Post by m-ee »

labster wrote: post #54
valeron102 wrote: post #15

Texas? Texas, USA? the land of the free... Are we going back on hunting witches?

They never hunted witches in Texas. Brujas maybe, but they definitely hunted Indians.

Mexicans/Mexican Americans as well. The history of the Texas rangers is pretty sordid.
Post reply on HN