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

Post by unclebucknasty » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #57

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…

Post by justin66 » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #110

justin66 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A non-profit sued it's way to SCOTUS a few years ago in defense of frogs. Is a non-profit defending frogs meant to be self-evidently absurd?

For standing to sue? Yes Why would a special interest group be able to sue to protect frogs, but another wouldn't be able to sue to protect unborn babies?

Post by belltaco » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 3:28 AM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #71

flailingroof wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. Or it will just cause the women to get abortions elsewhere, or let the kids grow up in homes that can't support them. Not to mention the extra loads of single moms (or dads). No one will be "saved". What it's more likely to accomplish is to make Texas even more republican, and to make the US appear even more crazy to the outside world.

Adoption is an option, and you have no idea who that child could become. Steve Jobs was given up for adoption because abortion wasn’t legal at the time.

Post by beerandt » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 4:28 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #113

beerandt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For standing to sue? Yes Why would a special interest group be able to sue to protect frogs, but another wouldn't be able to sue to protect unborn babies?

They're going to have some issues bringing frogs in as a party to a lawsuit (those little green bastards can't even sign the appropriate paperwork... lack of opposable thumbs) but there's nothing legally noteworthy about a non-profit group obtaining standing to sue the government about an environmental or ecological issue that is covered under statute, or under the executive branch/EPA's enforcement jurisdiction.

Post by viraptor » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #58

MisterSandman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.