https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/18/texas-abortion-provider-alan-braid/ Texas doctor publicly saying he has broken the new Texas law.
I suspect that trying to defend their actions using Citizens United would fail. Citizens United does not mean that a corporation can use money-as-speech to engage in illegal behavior, generally.
SCOTUS has a case challenging Roe/Casey that it will hear in December. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-mississippi-abortion-case-roe-v-wade I would be shocked if SCOTUS leaves Roe/Casey fully intact.
Trumpforge during Trump's judge picks- Kavanaugh/Barrett won't get rid of Roe, you're paranoid! Trumpforge now- Yaaayyyy! No more Roe! Tear it down! Wow, Trumpforge, your lies were so SMART! We didn't see through them at all!
Actually, I think they're still on the first part, and will remain there right up until it happens. (Or even later, if it's effectively invalidated but no Supreme Court justice writes the exact words "Roe v. Wade is hereby overturned.")
Yeah, that "exact words!!" strategy does look like what they're going to ride over the fucking waterfall and into the rocks, doesn't it? Someone on Fox must be saying it. Y'know, one of their brilliant intellectuals.
"Did they say Roe v. Wade is overturned, yes or no? Did they say Roe v. Wade is overturned, yes or no? Did they say Roe v. Wade is overturned, yes or no?"
So the first lawsuits against the guy who wrote the Times op-ed admitting he performed an abortion more than 6 weeks after conception. It seems like if you wanted to put forth a case that would lend itself to challenging the Texas bounty hunter law, you could do worse than a self-described "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer" on home confinement for felony tax evasion and a random Illinois resident who describes himself as pro-choice. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/us/texas-abortion-lawsuit-alan-braid.html
Is there a Trumpforge? It seems like everyone still here either is like "I was against him all along." or remains silent on the subject. With oldfella gone, is there anyone who will openly say that they are buying what Trump is selling?
The way the law is written, the minimum a plaintiff would get for a successful suit would get is $10k per abortion performed, plus attorney's fees and costs. This guy has admitted to performing only one abortion, but presumably he has done or will do additional ones. So while i haven't read these lawsuits, presumably the first of them who gets to the end will be able to collect $10k for each abortion they can prove he has done past 6 weeks. The law says that a defendant can show that having paid out for a given abortion in full and use that as a defense. But the problem is that if A, B and C sue D and A wins $20k, B and C can allege "But the full value of damages from that abortion is $30k, so I still should get paid." And if A loses, B and C still get another crack at it. And of course, regardless, A, B. and C get to drain D's resources through litigation. Literally nothing stops anyone who does not work for state or local government in Texas from suing this one guy if they want to.
I mean, Paladin has admitted to being overjoyed by the SC picks. Say Jeffrey Dahmer got Sith-cloned back to life, took over the board, killed and ate half of us, but installed a soft-serve machine. Then Anc killed Dahmer, and got the board back. Wouldn't it be kinda gross of me to go "yeah, but we get to keep the soft-serve, right? ". Like, not jokily, but un-ironically. Kinda where I'm at with Paladin being glad to get something out of Trump.
It's kinda clever. Get the absolute worst possible lawyers on the job, and watch them fuck up the arguments so badly the courts have no choice but to rule for the defendants. I wonder if it'll work. There's no "ineffective assistance of counsel" equivalent for a law, particularly one that Texas is specifically enjoined from enforcing, is there? Obviously it still has to be adversarial, but one of the plaintiffs could argue that, for instance, the law should be upheld specifically because it's sexist.
These people are representing themselves, so even if you had a right to counsel in a civil context (which has not been established, and presumably will not be established), they can't blame themselves for sucking. Presumably right-to-life groups and the Texas AG will file friend-of-the-court briefs to try to stop these plaintiffs from tanking the case for the law too badly. (Even though Texas officials are prohibited from enforcing the law, they can still articulate any rationale they want for why it is constitutional).
I suppose one could reasonably say, "It sucks that there was this horrible situation, but there's a silver lining in it." But it doesn't seem like Paladin or most of the people on the right who post here are willing to go and say that Trump overall was horrible. Or even a little bit horrible. They will criticize Jan. 6 -- heck even oldfella said that was wrong. But they will disassociate that from him, as Paladin did in this very thread. And any time someone brings up any of Trump's many failings (and despite supposedly seeing the flaws in both sides and/or having been against Trump all along, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people initiate a discussion of Trump/Republican flaws), it's often crickets or an example of some false equivalent Democrat stuff. Or worse, a weasel-worded defense of what Trump did (ala "Trump has the right to pursue all his legal rights in a recount" -- not recognizing that Trump did more than just pursue his "legal rights"). To borrow your analogy, it would be like someone constantly saying, "I know that Zombie Sith Jeffrey Dahmer was bad news and I was against him all along. But people keep forgetting how previous management allowed rep wars back in the day. Also, like all of us, Zombie Sith Jeffrey Dahmer has a right to self-defense and the right to trial by a jury of his peers. Sleepy Anc has a lot to answer for."
When it can survive outside a woman's body - THEN and only then, does it become a person. Even if it must survive on life saving equipment. So, after 4 months. Is that specific enough for you?
Until I hear men bitching about taxes paying for Viagra, then I don't want to hear men bitching about taxes paying for abortions - which they fucking don't - thank you Bill Clinton.
Well, Paladin (#217 in this thread) and T.R. (#233 and 243 in this thread) have both said that they do not believe Roe will be overturned. T.R. even used the word "paranoid" to describe people who think SCOTUS would overturn Roe. The second part of things in fairness admittedly hasn't happened yet. But it would not shock me if/when Roe is actually formally overturned some of the people who have claimed that they didn't think Roe would be overturned would be thrilled at it. I think, based on past postings, that Paladin is honest enough to admit that he thinks Roe should be overturned and will be personally happy if it is. (I have no idea if T.R. has convictions about Roe one way or another).
Can I perform an abortion, pay a random person $10,000, and use that as a defense? After all, I'm $10,000 poorer.
