41–50 of 104 posts
[flagged]
Why the minuses? Where am I wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The above article is https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/we-want-texans-know-th... . That article links to https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-te... which links to https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas... The second article states what you are saying, but the third article says that the information given in the second article was a lie.
According to internal Johnson County Sheriff's Office files released under the Texas Public Information Act, the entire "self-administered abortion" narrative was fabricated by a violent felon:
https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/crime/article31451... https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/feb/04/eastern-wa-flo...
The Ex-Girlfriend's Account: The woman later informed investigators that she had actually suffered a natural miscarriage after her ex-boyfriend physically assaulted her.
The False Fetus Evidence: The ex-boyfriend—seeking to deflect blame for the assault—collected a blood clot from the miscarriage, presented it to the police, and lied by claiming his ex-girlfriend had intentionally taken illegal abortion pills to end a pregnancy.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-police-cameras-us...
The Intent of the Search: The police reports later clarified that while the deputy typed "had an abortion" into the Flock Safety tracking system, they were actually attempting to locate the woman and her children because she was fleeing from this domestic violence situation.
Because the initial report was based on a malicious and fabricated claim by an abuser, an official clinical timeline of the pregnancy was never established or verified in the official "death investigation" file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone that does, I disagree. Laws on this subject should exclusively apply to providers, with exceptions for medical necessity. There are too many harms that come from targeting individuals to be worthwhile.
Problem with that is that gathering evidence invariably leads to tracking down the recipient of the provider's service.
"Last May, EFF reported that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion." These people really have nothing better to do?
This feels purposefully misleading. Did they manually watch hours and hours of footage, or is this the equivalent of "I searched an online corpus of hundreds of millions of documents" (I Googled it)
"Last May, EFF reported that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion." These people really have nothing better to do?
> from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader This feels purposefully misleading. Did they manually watch hours and hours of footage, or is this the equivalent of "I searched an online corpus of hundreds of millions of documents" (I Googled it)
The inclusion of 83,000 seems more intended to quantify the scope of the surveillance accessible to these sheriffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader This feels purposefully misleading. Did they manually watch hours and hours of footage, or is this the equivalent of "I searched an online corpus of hundreds of millions of documents" (I Googled it)
Doesn't feel misleading at all, "searched data from" is pretty much your "I Googled it" without branding. The inclusion of 83,000 seems more intended to quantify the scope of the surveillance accessible to these sheriffs.