8 ms·

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

42 points by samizdis 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bandyaboot 5y ago
This will probably follow the same pattern as companies’ response to politicians who gave credence to the election lies: stop donations —-> some time passes —-> resume donations.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  "Stay out of politics!" Companies halt political donations. "Not like that!"
samizdis 5y ago
"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 thought that I had a pretty good handle on things American. I went to a UK school, from age 7 to nearly 18, which was run by Americans. I've never got the whole gun thing, but it's never bothered me. However, the recent stuff - abortion and voting rights being eroded - has just knocked me sideways. I'd have said they were un-American. Now, I don't know what to think. I really mean this. Was I always wrong?
- xivzgrev 5y ago
  For voting, generally speaking these restrictions tend to make it harder for people who lean Democrat. There’s a good ACLU overview here: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/ https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot... For abortion, it’s comes down to this: do you believe a fertilized egg is a baby, and it’s equivalent to murder? And if you do / don’t, at what point are you ok with it? Lot of people here believe it’s a baby at moment of conception, so any abortion is murder. Lot of people also believe it’s the woman choice, it’s her body. These two opposite forces tug and pull and you end up with shit like after six weeks it’s illegal.
- option 5y ago
  regarding “voter suppression”. Do you require an ID to vote in UK? I don’t get why is this controversial in US…
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Because many poor and specific minority groups people don’t have IDs. These laws are specifically designed knowing that these groups rarely vote Republican yet are big enough group to make a dent.
    - option 5y ago
      so isn’t the main problem which need immediate fix is the fact that they don’t have an Id. You do already have to have an Id for many basic thing. Getting an Id should be very cheap (even free for some) and very easy. Personally, when I came to US as an immigrant it was very cheap and easy for me. And in my home country in Europe everyone needs an Id to vote and no one complains.
      - azinman2 5y ago
        You have the right to vote as a US citizen. Every little thing you do to add friction to that disenfranchises such populations. We're not talking about urban, educated people with means. To get an ID you will need other forms of identification, which depending on who you are and what your background is, can mean you have nothing to present. Much has been written on this topic. I encourage you to do a little research before jumping to conclusions. From the top link to a simple google query [1]: • Rates of identification-ownership are highest among White individuals, while other ethnic groups disproportionately lack necessary photo ID. Thirteen percent of Blacks, 10 percent of Hispanics, but only 5 percent of Whites lack photographic identification. • Lower-income individuals are less likely to have photo ID. Twelve percent of adults living in a household with less than $25,000 annual income lack photo ID, compared to just 2 percent in households with over $150,000 annual income. • Young adults are less likely to have photo ID: 15 percent of 17-20 year- olds lack photo ID, and 11 percent of those ages 21-24 lack photo ID. [1] http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERIC...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Bostonian 5y ago
  The red states being pilloried for supposedly restrictive voting laws do not generally have more restrictions than blue states such as New York. The critics are motivated by a desire to discredit Republicans rather than a general interest in voting rights.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > supposedly restrictive voting laws do not generally have more restrictions than blue states such as New York Can you give any examples to support this? We have no ID requirement, no questions asked mail-in ballots, early voting, and paper ballots. The Texas law isn’t all bad. Recording vote counting, paper trails and regulating the removal of voters from rolls is good policy. But the restrictions on early voting and ballot distribution & collection are bad. The limits on urban polling locations are blatantly partisan.
    - tristanMatthias 5y ago
      What about vaccine passports?
      - edoceo 5y ago
        You can vote regardless of vaccine status so they aren't relevant.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > What about vaccine passports? Vaccine passports are not a voting restriction in New York, or anywhere else in the US.
    - dfee 5y ago
      Here are those limits: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html They really don’t seem draconian to me.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
- thatfrenchguy 5y ago
  The GOP knows the only way they can keep power in Florida and Texas is by making sure people don’t move there unless they’re super conservative, hence all those stupid laws. The housing crisis in a lot of blue states has made a lot of middle class folks move to those states. Their electorate is mostly non-Hispanic white, non-immigrant and older and their numbers will continue to dwindle over time.
  - dfee 5y ago
    This doesn’t seem recognizable to me. Do you live in Texas? (Yeah, parent comment has changed.)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - s5300 5y ago
      No, as much as I don't like it, he is correct. Especially South Texas. A large factor is immigrants that went through the tedious years long drudgery that is the legal process for US citizenship being really pissed at the fact some may not have to go through the aforementioned like they did - misery loves company or something like that. Another is that these immigrants and minorities are typically fairly uneducated and truly believe the man with the golden shitter is actually like them and is going to help them. And some of it is trying to fit in with the preexisting community. If you're a brown person in a town of white religious/nationalistic fanatics that typically do not like brown people, vowing your loyalty to their guy is typically a quick way to fit in a bit better.
    - big_youth 5y ago
      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 it, I want to add that as a Mexican born and raised a border town I think the flipped Hispanic counties on the border are an anomaly. If you investigate the counties, like Zavala, that flipped, they are 1 largely blue collar men which love Trump (my roofer uncle), and 2 Zavala was actually one of the few counties that LOST population according to the 2020 census. The correlation is visible, the counties that had the highest population decline in Texas voted most heavily for Trump while the fast growing suburbs are now purple and blue. In this booming state the poor counties losing money and people are the ones voting GOP. [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/phszk7/anyone_suddenly_want_to_leave_not_because_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/phszk7/anyone_sudde... [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/pgjze1/anyone_else_getting_the_urge_to_move_out_of_texas/ https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/pgjze1/anyone_else_g...
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. So the question about whether it's a private medical choice or an issue of bodily autonomy doesn't even enter into the discussion. There are laws against murdering someone other ways that restrict bodily autonomy, but we aren't bothered by those; as the saying goes, your rights stop where your fist hits my nose. On the voting law I think it's reasonable in most places. Poll-watching isn't a problem, and ID requirements aren't a big issue. I disagree with the law in that people should be able to distribute mail-in ballots since the new ID requirements make them more resistant to fraud. Not sure what you mean about removing electoral rights. I am, however, bothered by the fact that it (and most other voting laws) are driven by "stolen election" lies, which is almost worse than people trying to hang onto power (which they've done with re-districting/gerrymandering for a long time already).
  - bambax 5y ago
    > Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.
    - beaner 5y ago
      > So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. You might need a source on this one. This certainly applies to some religious types, but is it a "general" truth for people who would pass the heartbeat law? A law which still allows abortion but identifies a test for when life begins? I don't think so.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Last time I tried to find a pro-life organization that wasn't also anti birth control, I couldn't find one. I suspect that's because they were funded mostly by the catholic church.
- Sevii 5y ago
  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.
  - stavros 5y ago
    I don't understand this argument, though. You can make it about literally any group that includes more than two people. If it means that you can't say anything about a large group of people, I'm not sure I agree, given that most countries can agree on enough things to be governed. I'm not exactly sure what the point of the argument is.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Strangely, all of those countries agree on important societal issues.
    - glogla 5y ago
      Yeah, the only odd one out here is England with it's US-like disdain for workers' rights, tenants' rights, paid college education, general idea that poor people deserve to suffer and raci^H^H^H^Hhate for immigration.
    - WanderPanda 5y ago
      cough Brexit cough
      - bserge 5y ago
        Brexit was a vote by the ignored masses on important issues. I bet my life it wouldn't have happened if the UK gov implemented the same workers protections and immigration rules as Germany, for example.
        WanderPanda 5y ago
- rdiddly 5y ago
  Most Americans are pro-choice and like being able to vote. This is an aberration, a bit of theater, which means it gets a lot of attention. There will be political blowback in response to this.
- newbie789 5y ago
  “The abortion thing” has been a political wedge issue in American politics for generations. Voting against our own interests because we’ve been whipped up into a frenzy by religious zealots and hardline partisans is very, very American. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “wrong”, but I suppose if you mean “should I have seen this coming?” I’d probably say “Yes. The writing has been on the wall for years.”
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  Human rights are a binary thing: either you are a human and you have them, or you are not a human and you don't have them. IMO it all comes down to when we define the bag of cells to be a human being. Once the bag of cells is a human being murdering it is obviously a crime. IMO any view point between the first cells are already a human being to it becoming a human at birth are valid. Why not settle this in a referendum once and for all? If the vote is close to 50-50 maybe a more regional referendum would make sense to maximise happines with the outcome.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo. Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced. The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice to cease providing it at anytime, with the stipulation that at the time the decision is made, they cannot choose mechanisms to end it which unnecessarily harm the recipient.
    - lax4ever 5y ago
      Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many cases a child remains dependent on the mother's metabolic processes when thy receive breastmilk. Why is it acceptable to kill the child before exiting the birth canal but not after?
      - WanderPanda 5y ago
        I see the point that there is no single way to separate the unborn from its mother, while in all other cases there are ways that it can survive when separated (even though the separation might not be allowed).
        5y ago
- Bostonian 5y ago
  Much of the criticism of the Texas voting law is demagoguery: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-voting-law-elections-republicans-11630533819 https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-votin... What’s Really in the Texas Voting Law Progressives are crying ‘voter suppression,’ but here are the facts. By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal Sept. 1, 2021 6:38 pm ET ... The Texas bill isn’t a blockade of the ballot box. The two most-cited provisions will ban 24-hour voting and drive-through voting, practices that weren’t even used until last year, when one county tried them in a pandemic. It isn’t crazy to think polling sites are likelier to attract trouble, or at least suspicion, at 3 a.m. Early voting in Texas will be able to run from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., or Sundays from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. In some places, mandatory hours will go up. The bill says six Sunday hours will be required in counties with 55,000 people. The current rule is five hours in counties over 100,000. The new ban on drive-through voting has an exception for people with physical difficulties. Texans using mail ballots will ID themselves by writing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. That’s far less subjective than asking election workers to eyeball signatures. If the ID number is correct, the signature will be “presumed” valid. If the ID is wrong or there’s another problem, the bill provides a process to fix it. Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.” The bill is 75 pages, but here are some other bits that won’t make headlines but will help voter integrity: Every two years the state will audit four random counties. Ballot harvesting “in exchange for compensation” will be banned. Counties with more than 100,000 people will have to live stream video from their central counting location. Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns. Election administrators will be barred from sending unsolicited absentee forms, though candidates and parties can do so. Courts will “instruct” newly convicted felons on their changed voting rights. Official correspondence with voting-system vendors will be deemed generally “not confidential.” Democrats object that the bill empowers poll watchers. It also requires watchers to take a state “training program” and an oath that they won’t “disrupt the voting process.” The bill will make it a crime if an official “knowingly refuses to accept a watcher” or “knowingly prevents a watcher from observing an activity or procedure the person knows the watcher is entitled to observe.” The key word: “knowingly.”
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    >Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.” Too short of a timeline. > Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns. This is a poison pill you can't see. Democrats have always been more likely to use mail in ballots because they are more likely to be in a position where going to poll isn't feasible. So if the mail in votes lean one direction, and get reported separately (especially in a way that delays them) then republicans can attack the legitimacy of those votes. Texas is gonna end up turning blue here soon and they want to make sure they can attack the legitimacy of that.
- lax4ever 5y ago
  1) When did we start thinking that life doesn't begin at conception? Why is OK for a mother to end a life? By just about every definition that child growing inside of her is a unique life. Sure, it's dependent on mom for a while, but being dependent on a parent doesn't stop when the baby exits the birth canal. So why is it OK to kill the child in the birth canal but not outside of it? 2) What greater equalizer is there in a self-defense situation than a firearm? If you are an average woman being attacked by an average man, what out there is a greater equalizer and application of stopping force than a firearm? If you are a man being attacked by a stronger man what is a greater equalizer than a firearm? The US has in excess of 300 million firearms, an estimated 800,000 to 3,000,000 instances of defensive use of firearms a year. Each of those numbers is massive in comparison to the miniscule number of gun homicides (approx 14k) or even gun related suicides (30k) per year according to the last study the CDC did on guns. Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem. Maybe it's a very select set of people who use the guns that are the problem? 3) In the US, to do anything of larger consequence (buy/lease/rent a vehicle, purchase a house, rent an apartment, purchase alcohol, enter certain buildings, travel by plane, buy a firearm, in some cases file taxes) you need an ID. Why is so ludicrous to suggest that voting be something that unilaterally requires an ID? Over 3/4's of the nation's minorities support voter ID. https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-supp... It's starting to look like I will need a vax pass just to go to a restaurant. Why is this such an issue? EDIT to try and make more readable
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > However, the recent stuff - abortion and voting rights being eroded - has just knocked me sideways. I'd have said they were un-American. Now, I don't know what to think. I really mean this. Was I always wrong? Anti-abortionism has always been a core pillar of the GOP's social policy because it's highly popular with the religious demographics that make up much of their base, even people who might otherwise not vote for them (e.g. some Catholics). After a Republican president had the chance to seat 3 judges, it's logical that red states would start a war against Roe v. Wade. We saw this coming as soon as Trump got his second SCOTUS judge, and when RBG died the writing was on the wall. No matter how strongly I feel about abortion, the election stuff is more acutely concerning after seeing the degree to which powerful state- and local-level politicians were willing to kowtow to Trump and repeat his baseless lies in the fallout from the 2020 election. These are political hacks with zero regard for the integrity of our electoral process, and with some changes to local election law (like we've been seeing across the country, predicated on lies about election fraud), they may just accomplish in 2024 what they were trying to do in 2020. I would call it a relatively new trend, and it is fucking frightening. They are learning that the more they corrupt the process, the less anybody is able to hold them to account, and their mendacity and depravity seem to know no bounds.
  - samizdis 5y ago
    >... powerful state- and local-level politicians were willing to kowtow to Trump and repeat his baseless lies in the fallout from the 2020 election. These are political hacks with zero regard for the integrity of our electoral process, ... >I would call it a relatively new trend, and it is fucking frightening. They are learning that the more they corrupt the process, the less anybody is able to hold them to account, and their mendacity and depravity seem to know no bounds. Yes, this. It is something that I would never have expected in the US, because, to me, "unAmerican". When I was growing up, I was extremely conscious that although I was British by birth, my entire family was Irish (from the republic). I fielded a lot of crap from people on account of my parents' accents etc; there were lots of problems in the UK because of IRA attacks etc. My go-to place, my haven in my head, was that the US (although I realised even when growing up that many Irish-Americans were pro-Republican and supported extremism in the cause of a united Ireland) was bigger, better and as a nation above partisanship, seeing a world picture and being the leader in championing rights and fairness. Yes, a bit cut-throat and market-driven, but always in pursuit of equal opportunity and fairness. I'd imagined that the US would lead the world into a higher plane - by example, and by sheer economic force: "you need our money, you toe the line". Anyhow, I still cling to my childhood dream of America and Americans coming through for the rest of the world. In simplistic terms, as I saw that dream, that everyone deserves the same degree of respect because of our common humanity. To restate my original sentiment, perhaps I was just wrong.
- moxzyros 5y ago
  What you probably don't realize is how culturally diverse America is, maybe more so than any other country. The thinking and culture varies wildly. Rural Texas could not be more different than urban California. I care deeply about rights, but I suppose I cannot count myself among the enlightened; I cannot condone abortion since there is no way to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn are not sentient people. And in my opinion, showing an ID to vote is just reasonable considering all it's other uses. Erosion of rights in America is occurring recently through draconian executive orders that mandate behavior without due process. If Texas passes a law through due process, that's your problem not theirs. I don't mean to surmise what across the pond means, but if you're looking for dramatic erosion of rights look to Australia.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Due process in an unfathomably gerrymandered state is a straw man.
  - samizdis 5y ago
    > What you probably don't realize is how culturally diverse America is, maybe more so than any other country. Visiting the US the first few times did demonstrate a cultural diversity that I hadn't actually realised until I was there. However, I grew up in London and, the UK being tiny, spent time in Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and many other places that were culturally diverse - if by culturally diverse one means race, religion, cuisine etc. I thought that America had an overarching sense of being American that transcended its constituent cultures - in a far more concrete sense than "Britishness", whatever that means. Let's be honest. An Indian, Chinese, Pakistani - French person, even - arriving in Britain in my youth had little expectation of aspiring to "Britishness". There really isn't such a thing. But those people heading to the US had something almost tangible - again, overarching - the idea of Americanness that transcended everything. Class, culture, status, no matter. The American dream. Or, perhaps, I just watched too many films - ahem, movies - as a kid that advertised this message to the world. But even discarding the rose-tinted goggles of youth, I still think that there was a genuine spirit of an American ideal that held true until, perhaps, only a few years ago. I can't imagine the American people just sitting idly by and watching it be torn apart from within.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Before this week the most restrictive state law in the US was more permissive of abortions (24 weeks by request without cause) than the most liberal European countries (22 weeks by request without cause -or- 24 weeks with 1-2 or more medical doctors good faith declaration of risk). Other European countries are more conservative. And the vast majority of jurisdictions outside Europe are even more conservative than that. But that info is nowhere in the news, or even on the Wikipedia page that just lumps all countries together that allow any abortions by request. This is 100% a media-driven issue. Until this week, Europe was more "Red State" on the issue than Texas. All other red states continue to be.
  - pbourke 5y ago
    > All other red states continue to be. Yes, due to Roe and against the concerted effort of their Republican politicians. If the Texas law cannot be challenged then Roe is done, and those red states follow Texas’ suit. What a disingenuous comment.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      The point is that if it weren't for judicial activism, there might have been a more moderate middle ground reached, and that the perception of that anything more conservative than the status quo is radical is disingenuous. More conservative than roe or casey is made out to be radical, and based on the laws of the rest of the world, that's absolutely not the case.
deplatform_hate 5y ago
All of these companies, starting with Uber, should immediately terminate accounts of Texas Republican law makers and ban any further service to them. That would be a real first step in fighting this law.
- pepperonipizza 5y ago
  That would be illegal
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    No it wouldn't. Companies can choose who they wish to do business with except for certain protected classes, and being a politician or anti-abortion are not protected classes. Lots of companies refused to do business with Trump or Parker following the insurrection and that was all legal (and continues to this day).
s5300 5y ago
Those who enact law against abortion should have to Google "trisomy 13 cyclops" (warning: NSFL) on a large projector in public and have their reactions broadcast. I can't even find the worst image in an older case study I'm thinking of right now, but damn has Google images of it gotten worse since I last looked. Some life is simply incompatible with life.
- ivnubinas 5y ago
  Genuine question: Is that an argument for abortion only on extreme circumstances or for abortion in general?
  - s5300 5y ago
    It is with regards to their view of any abortion being flat out murder. Which is the side that a large amount of the older religious populace falls on. In essence, you can in fact get some of them to agree with the things like abortions in extreme circumstances such as trisomy 13, but then they're just being hypocrites, because they earlier stated that any abortion is murder. In the end, they show their true colors of mostly just wanting to control women and minorities, and the politicians just keeping a downtrodden and uneducated voter base that they can dangle a "vote for me and I'll help you" carrot in front of for life.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Most companies will put up with whatever regressive social policies are put in place as long as the locales in which they're enacted are suitable for them to do business.
swayvil 5y ago
My body my choice! Oh, wait.
6051A86D 5y ago
This is not a political discussion site. Please don't submit stories like this. They just provide yet another anonymous place for people to argue and talk past each other.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  As someone who lives in Texas, this is very relevant to HN readership. I wouldn't move to Texas now if this law were in place, and if I needed people in the state I work think twice about creating a startup here these days.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  Insisting on keeping things apolitical is a political statement in itself, just in favor of the status quo, rather than in opposition. You can't escape politics.
  - 6051A86D 5y ago
    There are innumerable other places to have political discussions. This topic is indisputably a lightning rod and catalyst for flamewars. Can we have one single place where we agree not to disagree like this? Without that we will never agree on anything.
    - MrStonedOne 5y ago
      No.
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      This community has a lot of people in positions that can have a big impact on the direction of society. Going in to an echo chamber somewhere else achieves nothing.
      - GoodJokes 5y ago
        That is a nice fantasy to believe in
RyanShook 5y ago
When did we decide corporations need to have a stance on most political issues? It seems some are genuine but more are trying to simply appease stakeholders.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
klyrs 5y ago
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. Let's use it to replace taxes -- if somebody has 10x more money than you, sue them and their bank, financial advisors. Let's use it to ban gas vehicles -- lawsuits for everybody that's ever been driven somewhere. Let's use it for Sharia law -- every violation is a lawsuit, and the state pays handsomely to the lawyers who enforce it. If this citizen enforcement truly is an end run on the constitution, there's no reason not to use that. And just like this Texan law, jurisdiction doesn't matter. If Washington State bans guns, hate speech, wealth,cars and implements Sharia law, it can be enforced around the country. If there's nothing unconstitutional about the way this Texan law is implemented, then the constitution is little more than a tissue in a tornado.
- notadev 5y ago
  I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    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 that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      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.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Replace "abortion" with "having a gun" and it's constitutionally equivalent. California, you know what to do.
GoodJokes 5y ago
We prefer to kill our babies and humans out in the open, slowly through exploitation. See if you kill the baby, how will extract profit from it.
xnx 5y ago
or not Companies Stay Quiet on Texas’ New Abortion Law https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/business/companies-texas-sb8-abortion-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/business/companies-texas-...

42 points by samizdis 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

This will probably follow the same pattern as companies’ response to politicians who gave credence to the election lies: stop donations —-> some time passes —-> resume donations.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
"Stay out of politics!" Companies halt political donations. "Not like that!"

samizdis 5y ago

"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 thought that I had a pretty good handle on things American. I went to a UK school, from age 7 to nearly 18, which was run by Americans. I've never got the whole gun thing, but it's never bothered me. However, the recent stuff - abortion and voting rights being eroded - has just knocked me sideways. I'd have said they were un-American. Now, I don't know what to think. I really mean this. Was I always wrong?

xivzgrev 5y ago
For voting, generally speaking these restrictions tend to make it harder for people who lean Democrat. There’s a good ACLU overview here: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/ https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot... For abortion, it’s comes down to this: do you believe a fertilized egg is a baby, and it’s equivalent to murder? And if you do / don’t, at what point are you ok with it? Lot of people here believe it’s a baby at moment of conception, so any abortion is murder. Lot of people also believe it’s the woman choice, it’s her body. These two opposite forces tug and pull and you end up with shit like after six weeks it’s illegal.
option 5y ago
regarding “voter suppression”. Do you require an ID to vote in UK? I don’t get why is this controversial in US…
- azinman2 5y ago
  Because many poor and specific minority groups people don’t have IDs. These laws are specifically designed knowing that these groups rarely vote Republican yet are big enough group to make a dent.
  - option 5y ago
    so isn’t the main problem which need immediate fix is the fact that they don’t have an Id. You do already have to have an Id for many basic thing. Getting an Id should be very cheap (even free for some) and very easy. Personally, when I came to US as an immigrant it was very cheap and easy for me. And in my home country in Europe everyone needs an Id to vote and no one complains.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      You have the right to vote as a US citizen. Every little thing you do to add friction to that disenfranchises such populations. We're not talking about urban, educated people with means. To get an ID you will need other forms of identification, which depending on who you are and what your background is, can mean you have nothing to present. Much has been written on this topic. I encourage you to do a little research before jumping to conclusions. From the top link to a simple google query [1]: • Rates of identification-ownership are highest among White individuals, while other ethnic groups disproportionately lack necessary photo ID. Thirteen percent of Blacks, 10 percent of Hispanics, but only 5 percent of Whites lack photographic identification. • Lower-income individuals are less likely to have photo ID. Twelve percent of adults living in a household with less than $25,000 annual income lack photo ID, compared to just 2 percent in households with over $150,000 annual income. • Young adults are less likely to have photo ID: 15 percent of 17-20 year- olds lack photo ID, and 11 percent of those ages 21-24 lack photo ID. [1] http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERIC...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Bostonian 5y ago
The red states being pilloried for supposedly restrictive voting laws do not generally have more restrictions than blue states such as New York. The critics are motivated by a desire to discredit Republicans rather than a general interest in voting rights.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > supposedly restrictive voting laws do not generally have more restrictions than blue states such as New York Can you give any examples to support this? We have no ID requirement, no questions asked mail-in ballots, early voting, and paper ballots. The Texas law isn’t all bad. Recording vote counting, paper trails and regulating the removal of voters from rolls is good policy. But the restrictions on early voting and ballot distribution & collection are bad. The limits on urban polling locations are blatantly partisan.
  - tristanMatthias 5y ago
    What about vaccine passports?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      You can vote regardless of vaccine status so they aren't relevant.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > What about vaccine passports? Vaccine passports are not a voting restriction in New York, or anywhere else in the US.
  - dfee 5y ago
    Here are those limits: https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html https://www.votetexas.gov/faq/early-voting.html They really don’t seem draconian to me.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
thatfrenchguy 5y ago
The GOP knows the only way they can keep power in Florida and Texas is by making sure people don’t move there unless they’re super conservative, hence all those stupid laws. The housing crisis in a lot of blue states has made a lot of middle class folks move to those states. Their electorate is mostly non-Hispanic white, non-immigrant and older and their numbers will continue to dwindle over time.
- dfee 5y ago
  This doesn’t seem recognizable to me. Do you live in Texas? (Yeah, parent comment has changed.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - s5300 5y ago
    No, as much as I don't like it, he is correct. Especially South Texas. A large factor is immigrants that went through the tedious years long drudgery that is the legal process for US citizenship being really pissed at the fact some may not have to go through the aforementioned like they did - misery loves company or something like that. Another is that these immigrants and minorities are typically fairly uneducated and truly believe the man with the golden shitter is actually like them and is going to help them. And some of it is trying to fit in with the preexisting community. If you're a brown person in a town of white religious/nationalistic fanatics that typically do not like brown people, vowing your loyalty to their guy is typically a quick way to fit in a bit better.
  - big_youth 5y ago
    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 it, I want to add that as a Mexican born and raised a border town I think the flipped Hispanic counties on the border are an anomaly. If you investigate the counties, like Zavala, that flipped, they are 1 largely blue collar men which love Trump (my roofer uncle), and 2 Zavala was actually one of the few counties that LOST population according to the 2020 census. The correlation is visible, the counties that had the highest population decline in Texas voted most heavily for Trump while the fast growing suburbs are now purple and blue. In this booming state the poor counties losing money and people are the ones voting GOP. [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/phszk7/anyone_suddenly_want_to_leave_not_because_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/phszk7/anyone_sudde... [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/pgjze1/anyone_else_getting_the_urge_to_move_out_of_texas/ https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/pgjze1/anyone_else_g...
collegeburner 5y ago
Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. So the question about whether it's a private medical choice or an issue of bodily autonomy doesn't even enter into the discussion. There are laws against murdering someone other ways that restrict bodily autonomy, but we aren't bothered by those; as the saying goes, your rights stop where your fist hits my nose. On the voting law I think it's reasonable in most places. Poll-watching isn't a problem, and ID requirements aren't a big issue. I disagree with the law in that people should be able to distribute mail-in ballots since the new ID requirements make them more resistant to fraud. Not sure what you mean about removing electoral rights. I am, however, bothered by the fact that it (and most other voting laws) are driven by "stolen election" lies, which is almost worse than people trying to hang onto power (which they've done with re-districting/gerrymandering for a long time already).
- bambax 5y ago
  > Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.
  - beaner 5y ago
    > So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. You might need a source on this one. This certainly applies to some religious types, but is it a "general" truth for people who would pass the heartbeat law? A law which still allows abortion but identifies a test for when life begins? I don't think so.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Last time I tried to find a pro-life organization that wasn't also anti birth control, I couldn't find one. I suspect that's because they were funded mostly by the catholic church.
Sevii 5y ago
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.
- stavros 5y ago
  I don't understand this argument, though. You can make it about literally any group that includes more than two people. If it means that you can't say anything about a large group of people, I'm not sure I agree, given that most countries can agree on enough things to be governed. I'm not exactly sure what the point of the argument is.
- bserge 5y ago
  Strangely, all of those countries agree on important societal issues.
  - glogla 5y ago
    Yeah, the only odd one out here is England with it's US-like disdain for workers' rights, tenants' rights, paid college education, general idea that poor people deserve to suffer and raci^H^H^H^Hhate for immigration.
  - WanderPanda 5y ago
    cough Brexit cough
    - bserge 5y ago
      Brexit was a vote by the ignored masses on important issues. I bet my life it wouldn't have happened if the UK gov implemented the same workers protections and immigration rules as Germany, for example.
      - WanderPanda 5y ago
rdiddly 5y ago
Most Americans are pro-choice and like being able to vote. This is an aberration, a bit of theater, which means it gets a lot of attention. There will be political blowback in response to this.
newbie789 5y ago
“The abortion thing” has been a political wedge issue in American politics for generations. Voting against our own interests because we’ve been whipped up into a frenzy by religious zealots and hardline partisans is very, very American. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “wrong”, but I suppose if you mean “should I have seen this coming?” I’d probably say “Yes. The writing has been on the wall for years.”
WanderPanda 5y ago
Human rights are a binary thing: either you are a human and you have them, or you are not a human and you don't have them. IMO it all comes down to when we define the bag of cells to be a human being. Once the bag of cells is a human being murdering it is obviously a crime. IMO any view point between the first cells are already a human being to it becoming a human at birth are valid. Why not settle this in a referendum once and for all? If the vote is close to 50-50 maybe a more regional referendum would make sense to maximise happines with the outcome.
- gfodor 5y ago
  This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo. Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced. The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice to cease providing it at anytime, with the stipulation that at the time the decision is made, they cannot choose mechanisms to end it which unnecessarily harm the recipient.
  - lax4ever 5y ago
    Why is it just metabolic support that is the qualifier here? A child is still very dependent on caregivers for years after exiting the birth canal, and in many cases a child remains dependent on the mother's metabolic processes when thy receive breastmilk. Why is it acceptable to kill the child before exiting the birth canal but not after?
    - WanderPanda 5y ago
      I see the point that there is no single way to separate the unborn from its mother, while in all other cases there are ways that it can survive when separated (even though the separation might not be allowed).
      - 5y ago
Bostonian 5y ago
Much of the criticism of the Texas voting law is demagoguery: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-voting-law-elections-republicans-11630533819 https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-votin... What’s Really in the Texas Voting Law Progressives are crying ‘voter suppression,’ but here are the facts. By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal Sept. 1, 2021 6:38 pm ET ... The Texas bill isn’t a blockade of the ballot box. The two most-cited provisions will ban 24-hour voting and drive-through voting, practices that weren’t even used until last year, when one county tried them in a pandemic. It isn’t crazy to think polling sites are likelier to attract trouble, or at least suspicion, at 3 a.m. Early voting in Texas will be able to run from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., or Sundays from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. In some places, mandatory hours will go up. The bill says six Sunday hours will be required in counties with 55,000 people. The current rule is five hours in counties over 100,000. The new ban on drive-through voting has an exception for people with physical difficulties. Texans using mail ballots will ID themselves by writing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. That’s far less subjective than asking election workers to eyeball signatures. If the ID number is correct, the signature will be “presumed” valid. If the ID is wrong or there’s another problem, the bill provides a process to fix it. Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.” The bill is 75 pages, but here are some other bits that won’t make headlines but will help voter integrity: Every two years the state will audit four random counties. Ballot harvesting “in exchange for compensation” will be banned. Counties with more than 100,000 people will have to live stream video from their central counting location. Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns. Election administrators will be barred from sending unsolicited absentee forms, though candidates and parties can do so. Courts will “instruct” newly convicted felons on their changed voting rights. Official correspondence with voting-system vendors will be deemed generally “not confidential.” Democrats object that the bill empowers poll watchers. It also requires watchers to take a state “training program” and an oath that they won’t “disrupt the voting process.” The bill will make it a crime if an official “knowingly refuses to accept a watcher” or “knowingly prevents a watcher from observing an activity or procedure the person knows the watcher is entitled to observe.” The key word: “knowingly.”
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  >Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.” Too short of a timeline. > Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns. This is a poison pill you can't see. Democrats have always been more likely to use mail in ballots because they are more likely to be in a position where going to poll isn't feasible. So if the mail in votes lean one direction, and get reported separately (especially in a way that delays them) then republicans can attack the legitimacy of those votes. Texas is gonna end up turning blue here soon and they want to make sure they can attack the legitimacy of that.
lax4ever 5y ago
1) When did we start thinking that life doesn't begin at conception? Why is OK for a mother to end a life? By just about every definition that child growing inside of her is a unique life. Sure, it's dependent on mom for a while, but being dependent on a parent doesn't stop when the baby exits the birth canal. So why is it OK to kill the child in the birth canal but not outside of it? 2) What greater equalizer is there in a self-defense situation than a firearm? If you are an average woman being attacked by an average man, what out there is a greater equalizer and application of stopping force than a firearm? If you are a man being attacked by a stronger man what is a greater equalizer than a firearm? The US has in excess of 300 million firearms, an estimated 800,000 to 3,000,000 instances of defensive use of firearms a year. Each of those numbers is massive in comparison to the miniscule number of gun homicides (approx 14k) or even gun related suicides (30k) per year according to the last study the CDC did on guns. Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem. Maybe it's a very select set of people who use the guns that are the problem? 3) In the US, to do anything of larger consequence (buy/lease/rent a vehicle, purchase a house, rent an apartment, purchase alcohol, enter certain buildings, travel by plane, buy a firearm, in some cases file taxes) you need an ID. Why is so ludicrous to suggest that voting be something that unilaterally requires an ID? Over 3/4's of the nation's minorities support voter ID. https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-supp... It's starting to look like I will need a vax pass just to go to a restaurant. Why is this such an issue? EDIT to try and make more readable
caconym_ 5y ago
> However, the recent stuff - abortion and voting rights being eroded - has just knocked me sideways. I'd have said they were un-American. Now, I don't know what to think. I really mean this. Was I always wrong? Anti-abortionism has always been a core pillar of the GOP's social policy because it's highly popular with the religious demographics that make up much of their base, even people who might otherwise not vote for them (e.g. some Catholics). After a Republican president had the chance to seat 3 judges, it's logical that red states would start a war against Roe v. Wade. We saw this coming as soon as Trump got his second SCOTUS judge, and when RBG died the writing was on the wall. No matter how strongly I feel about abortion, the election stuff is more acutely concerning after seeing the degree to which powerful state- and local-level politicians were willing to kowtow to Trump and repeat his baseless lies in the fallout from the 2020 election. These are political hacks with zero regard for the integrity of our electoral process, and with some changes to local election law (like we've been seeing across the country, predicated on lies about election fraud), they may just accomplish in 2024 what they were trying to do in 2020. I would call it a relatively new trend, and it is fucking frightening. They are learning that the more they corrupt the process, the less anybody is able to hold them to account, and their mendacity and depravity seem to know no bounds.
- samizdis 5y ago
  >... powerful state- and local-level politicians were willing to kowtow to Trump and repeat his baseless lies in the fallout from the 2020 election. These are political hacks with zero regard for the integrity of our electoral process, ... >I would call it a relatively new trend, and it is fucking frightening. They are learning that the more they corrupt the process, the less anybody is able to hold them to account, and their mendacity and depravity seem to know no bounds. Yes, this. It is something that I would never have expected in the US, because, to me, "unAmerican". When I was growing up, I was extremely conscious that although I was British by birth, my entire family was Irish (from the republic). I fielded a lot of crap from people on account of my parents' accents etc; there were lots of problems in the UK because of IRA attacks etc. My go-to place, my haven in my head, was that the US (although I realised even when growing up that many Irish-Americans were pro-Republican and supported extremism in the cause of a united Ireland) was bigger, better and as a nation above partisanship, seeing a world picture and being the leader in championing rights and fairness. Yes, a bit cut-throat and market-driven, but always in pursuit of equal opportunity and fairness. I'd imagined that the US would lead the world into a higher plane - by example, and by sheer economic force: "you need our money, you toe the line". Anyhow, I still cling to my childhood dream of America and Americans coming through for the rest of the world. In simplistic terms, as I saw that dream, that everyone deserves the same degree of respect because of our common humanity. To restate my original sentiment, perhaps I was just wrong.
moxzyros 5y ago
What you probably don't realize is how culturally diverse America is, maybe more so than any other country. The thinking and culture varies wildly. Rural Texas could not be more different than urban California. I care deeply about rights, but I suppose I cannot count myself among the enlightened; I cannot condone abortion since there is no way to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn are not sentient people. And in my opinion, showing an ID to vote is just reasonable considering all it's other uses. Erosion of rights in America is occurring recently through draconian executive orders that mandate behavior without due process. If Texas passes a law through due process, that's your problem not theirs. I don't mean to surmise what across the pond means, but if you're looking for dramatic erosion of rights look to Australia.
- s5300 5y ago
  Due process in an unfathomably gerrymandered state is a straw man.
- samizdis 5y ago
  > What you probably don't realize is how culturally diverse America is, maybe more so than any other country. Visiting the US the first few times did demonstrate a cultural diversity that I hadn't actually realised until I was there. However, I grew up in London and, the UK being tiny, spent time in Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and many other places that were culturally diverse - if by culturally diverse one means race, religion, cuisine etc. I thought that America had an overarching sense of being American that transcended its constituent cultures - in a far more concrete sense than "Britishness", whatever that means. Let's be honest. An Indian, Chinese, Pakistani - French person, even - arriving in Britain in my youth had little expectation of aspiring to "Britishness". There really isn't such a thing. But those people heading to the US had something almost tangible - again, overarching - the idea of Americanness that transcended everything. Class, culture, status, no matter. The American dream. Or, perhaps, I just watched too many films - ahem, movies - as a kid that advertised this message to the world. But even discarding the rose-tinted goggles of youth, I still think that there was a genuine spirit of an American ideal that held true until, perhaps, only a few years ago. I can't imagine the American people just sitting idly by and watching it be torn apart from within.
beerandt 5y ago
Before this week the most restrictive state law in the US was more permissive of abortions (24 weeks by request without cause) than the most liberal European countries (22 weeks by request without cause -or- 24 weeks with 1-2 or more medical doctors good faith declaration of risk). Other European countries are more conservative. And the vast majority of jurisdictions outside Europe are even more conservative than that. But that info is nowhere in the news, or even on the Wikipedia page that just lumps all countries together that allow any abortions by request. This is 100% a media-driven issue. Until this week, Europe was more "Red State" on the issue than Texas. All other red states continue to be.
- pbourke 5y ago
  > All other red states continue to be. Yes, due to Roe and against the concerted effort of their Republican politicians. If the Texas law cannot be challenged then Roe is done, and those red states follow Texas’ suit. What a disingenuous comment.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The point is that if it weren't for judicial activism, there might have been a more moderate middle ground reached, and that the perception of that anything more conservative than the status quo is radical is disingenuous. More conservative than roe or casey is made out to be radical, and based on the laws of the rest of the world, that's absolutely not the case.

deplatform_hate 5y ago

All of these companies, starting with Uber, should immediately terminate accounts of Texas Republican law makers and ban any further service to them. That would be a real first step in fighting this law.

pepperonipizza 5y ago
That would be illegal
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  No it wouldn't. Companies can choose who they wish to do business with except for certain protected classes, and being a politician or anti-abortion are not protected classes. Lots of companies refused to do business with Trump or Parker following the insurrection and that was all legal (and continues to this day).

s5300 5y ago

Those who enact law against abortion should have to Google "trisomy 13 cyclops" (warning: NSFL) on a large projector in public and have their reactions broadcast. I can't even find the worst image in an older case study I'm thinking of right now, but damn has Google images of it gotten worse since I last looked. Some life is simply incompatible with life.

ivnubinas 5y ago
Genuine question: Is that an argument for abortion only on extreme circumstances or for abortion in general?
- s5300 5y ago
  It is with regards to their view of any abortion being flat out murder. Which is the side that a large amount of the older religious populace falls on. In essence, you can in fact get some of them to agree with the things like abortions in extreme circumstances such as trisomy 13, but then they're just being hypocrites, because they earlier stated that any abortion is murder. In the end, they show their true colors of mostly just wanting to control women and minorities, and the politicians just keeping a downtrodden and uneducated voter base that they can dangle a "vote for me and I'll help you" carrot in front of for life.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Most companies will put up with whatever regressive social policies are put in place as long as the locales in which they're enacted are suitable for them to do business.

swayvil 5y ago

My body my choice! Oh, wait.

6051A86D 5y ago

This is not a political discussion site. Please don't submit stories like this. They just provide yet another anonymous place for people to argue and talk past each other.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
As someone who lives in Texas, this is very relevant to HN readership. I wouldn't move to Texas now if this law were in place, and if I needed people in the state I work think twice about creating a startup here these days.
pope_meat 5y ago
Insisting on keeping things apolitical is a political statement in itself, just in favor of the status quo, rather than in opposition. You can't escape politics.
- 6051A86D 5y ago
  There are innumerable other places to have political discussions. This topic is indisputably a lightning rod and catalyst for flamewars. Can we have one single place where we agree not to disagree like this? Without that we will never agree on anything.
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
    No.
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    This community has a lot of people in positions that can have a big impact on the direction of society. Going in to an echo chamber somewhere else achieves nothing.
    - GoodJokes 5y ago
      That is a nice fantasy to believe in

RyanShook 5y ago

When did we decide corporations need to have a stance on most political issues? It seems some are genuine but more are trying to simply appease stakeholders.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

klyrs 5y ago

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. Let's use it to replace taxes -- if somebody has 10x more money than you, sue them and their bank, financial advisors. Let's use it to ban gas vehicles -- lawsuits for everybody that's ever been driven somewhere. Let's use it for Sharia law -- every violation is a lawsuit, and the state pays handsomely to the lawyers who enforce it. If this citizen enforcement truly is an end run on the constitution, there's no reason not to use that. And just like this Texan law, jurisdiction doesn't matter. If Washington State bans guns, hate speech, wealth,cars and implements Sharia law, it can be enforced around the country. If there's nothing unconstitutional about the way this Texan law is implemented, then the constitution is little more than a tissue in a tornado.

notadev 5y ago
I have no particular stance on abortion myself, but speech and bearing arms are constitutionally protected. Is abortion?
- klyrs 5y ago
  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 that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    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.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Replace "abortion" with "having a gun" and it's constitutionally equivalent. California, you know what to do.

GoodJokes 5y ago

We prefer to kill our babies and humans out in the open, slowly through exploitation. See if you kill the baby, how will extract profit from it.

xnx 5y ago

or not Companies Stay Quiet on Texas’ New Abortion Law https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/business/companies-texas-sb8-abortion-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/business/companies-texas-...