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

U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#131

Post by dfee »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103
dfee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are those limits: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html They really don’t seem draconian to me.

Those are the current limits. These are the new ones [1]. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/21/texas-voting-restric...

> Regulating voting hours

> Currently, counties with a population of 100,000 or more must provide at least 12 hours of early voting each weekday of the last week of early voting.

> SB 7 would lower that population threshold to 30,000 so more counties would be required to offer more early voting hours between the newly established window of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.

You’re against this?

> But the legislation also sets a 12-hour cap on how long early voting can run during that week, so polling places that stay open until 9 p.m. would have to open up later in the morning.

Or you think only being open for 12 hours is too constraining for [in person, early] voting… nonetheless in towns of 30k people?

I mean, there’s going to be a mixed bag if I were to really dig in, and now that I’m not a TX resident anymore, I don’t really care to.

In Palo Alto, during the last presidential election, I had to hand my ballot to a person who before feeding it into the machine reviewed my votes. She was particularly concerned about me choosing to NOT vote on certain issues, asking me if I wanted to try again. I never had anything like that in Texas or Oklahoma.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#132

Post by juletide »

collegeburner wrote: post #32
colinmhayes wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. If you caused a car accident which lead to the other person needing a kidney transplant that only you can provide should you be required to give up a kidney? I don't see how abortion is different. Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to b…

If you could be determined to be solely at fault, and if you're a match, and if there aren't other kidneys available, then I suppose that would make sense. The issue is that the mother (usually) made a choice to help create the fetus, or with the possibility of doing so (note that I am okay with abortions in case of rape for this reason).

I think it's useful to consider that many women may not be comfortable naming or formally accusing her rapist (for reasons that include, way more often than you'd think, that a family member is her rapist and she still lives at home). For this reason, anti-choice laws that have exceptions for rape often mean only a tiny minority of women can actually use the exception.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#133

Post by MrStonedOne »

klyrs wrote: post #110

One way to look at this law is that it uses an "escape hatch" to prevent people from having the standing to sue the state over it. Let's use it to ban hate speech -- anybody who aids and abets the publication of hate speech is fair game, not just the person who wrote it. Let's use it to ban all guns -- everybody from the gun shop to the gun range employees are fair game for aiding and abetting the use of firearms. Le…

Democrats have tried to do just that, to a degree, by giving gun violence victims the right to sue the gun shop and gun manufacture. I (and bernie) have opposed such bills, for the same i (and bernie) oppose this bill. its a shortcut around the constitution that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#134

Post by beerandt »

klyrs wrote: post #119
notadev wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?

Read up on the 9th amendment, protections need not be explicitly mentioned to exist. > Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. This has been reaffirmed in many subsequent rulings. Edit: but look at th…

And the 10th leaves the determination of that in the hands of the States, barring an amendment to the US Constitution.

Then there's the rabbit hole that is judicial review. And if constitutional protections need not be explicitly mentioned, why can't States assert that the right of judicial review is theirs, without the need to overturn or continue to respect Marbury v Madison.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#135

Post by tomjen3 »

beaner wrote: post #60
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case it's very simple: Is a fetus/embryo a baby or not? And what is the logical conclusion of that?

It is an interesting question. Clearly by the end of the term the baby can be forced out and live. It cannot live independently - but neither can a baby that has been born naturally. It takes like, five years for that. So dependence on the mother is not part of the definition of life. So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but cl…

We do not, in general, recognize that ordinary people have a legal non-emergency duty to save others.

Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? If it existed outside her, but required a kidney transplant to live, would she also be legally obligated to give it one? As far as I am aware that procedure is at lot less dangerous/damaging to a womans body than a pregnancy.

I can't see a logical argument against abortion that doesn't require any person to give up a kidney that a stranger need.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#136

Post by kmos17 »

notadev wrote: post #112
klyrs wrote: post #110

One way to look at this law is that it uses an "escape hatch" to prevent people from having the standing to sue the state over it. Let's use it to ban hate speech -- anybody who aids and abets the publication of hate speech is fair game, not just the person who wrote it. Let's use it to ban all guns -- everybody from the gun shop to the gun range employees are fair game for aiding and abetting the use of firearms. Le…

I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?

The right to do what you want with your body is too

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#137

Post by flyingcircus3 »

Sevii wrote: post #13
samizdis wrote: post #3

"Looking at the abortion law, or the gun law, or the voting law, it's a form of vigilante justice, where you're empowering individuals to enforce the law," said Tyson Tuttle, the CEO of Austin-based Silicon Laboratories (SLAB.O). "It's been a rough week in Texas and a harbinger of what's to come across the country." I'm from across the pond, and have spent limited time in the US - none of it in Texas - but I always t…

America is a huge country and we've been discovering over the last decade that we are a lot more divided than we realized. It's like combining France, Germany, England, Spain and Italy into one country and expecting them to agree on everything. Luckily in America we can just move to a state where reasonable people run things.

Doesn't that just encourage a positive feedback loop? On a large scale, fleeing a poorly run state increases the likelihood that those running the state continue to do so, while also increasing polarization. It often seems that the goals of both parties are to push so hard to their own side that the other party will magically capitulate. But as we've seen for at least the last 20 years, and likely much longer, every issue can be framed as an existential threat, where the only acceptable way forward is to double down.

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#138

Post by beaner »

tomjen3 wrote: post #135
beaner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an interesting question. Clearly by the end of the term the baby can be forced out and live. It cannot live independently - but neither can a baby that has been born naturally. It takes like, five years for that. So dependence on the mother is not part of the definition of life. So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but cl…

We do not, in general, recognize that ordinary people have a legal non-emergency duty to save others. Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? If it existed outside her, but required a kidney transplant to live, would she also be legally obligated to give it one? As far as I am aware that procedure is at lot less dangerous/damaging to a womans body than…

I think the kidney example is a little too technical for a good metaphor.

A parent does have an obligation to feed and keep healthy a child that cannot care for itself. There is such a concept as criminal negligence. For example, parents have been charged with manslaughter after they provided an insufficient diet for their child. [0]

> why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body?

I'm not sure that she does. She could theoretically take it out and raise it outside of her, but that would be quite bizarre and greatly increases the risk of criminal negligence and improper care. Babies are forced out early all the time, when the doctors recommend it if the baby is late.

[0] https://www.news-journalonline.com/zz/news/20191121/vegan-fl...

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#139

Post by dfee »

big_youth wrote: post #106
dfee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem recognizable to me. Do you live in Texas? (Yeah, parent comment has changed.)

Yes, third generation Native with a house in urban Austin but currently near the Guadalupe Mountains out west. I know reddit isn't representative of the state but both /r/austin and /r/texas have had this conversation many times.[0][1] I personally agree with the thesis that Texas GOP see's the demographic writing on the wall and want to limit to more liberal immigrants. And because I already saw a comment mentioning…

What part of “the parent comment has changed” did you not understand?

Re: U.S. companies lash out at Texas law changes, including abortion ban

#140

Post by klyrs »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #133
klyrs wrote: post #110

One way to look at this law is that it uses an "escape hatch" to prevent people from having the standing to sue the state over it. Let's use it to ban hate speech -- anybody who aids and abets the publication of hate speech is fair game, not just the person who wrote it. Let's use it to ban all guns -- everybody from the gun shop to the gun range employees are fair game for aiding and abetting the use of firearms. Le…

Democrats have tried to do just that, to a degree, by giving gun violence victims the right to sue the gun shop and gun manufacture. I (and bernie) have opposed such bills, for the same i (and bernie) oppose this bill. its a shortcut around the constitution that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Let it be known that I want zero laws like this to exist. Deputizing vigilantes to carry out dirty work that state can't do is an abomination.
Post reply on HN