8 ms·
Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago>Website hosting service GoDaddy Inc. on Friday, meanwhile, shut down a Texas anti-abortion website that allowed people to report suspected abortions. Assuming that it is legal to do what that website was doing, this is kind of becoming what people feared... tech companies deciding what laws are going to be upheld and what laws are not. Now you will have to align with the morality of the big corporations that dominate web hosting, even if what you're doing is 100% legal. Just thinking, what happens if their morality starts to diverge from the mainstream (at the moment mainstream opinion on abortion is opposed to bans and in favor of various restrictions beyond the 22 week point of viability, seems to be against this law as it is essentially a ban).
- botwriter 5y agoMay be a fair few less lefties in Texas after this.
- goatherders 5y agoGood. I live here and can't leave fast enough. This state is a mess.
- marcinzm 5y agoI wonder if that's a partial goal of this law. Keep the state red and have those who are more liberal leave. Ensures a nice voting block for national elections and ensures local officials do not get voted out in the future.
- goatherders 5y agoYes. I literally drew the Texas congressional lines in 2000 that set all this in motion and the primary goal of everything the state party does is to purge the state of people that don't vote Republican.
- xxpor 5y agoWoah woah woah hold up. You're the person who actually drew the lines? Sorry if this is rude, but what the hell were you thinking?
- goatherders 5y agoI was a 22 year old republican given something important to do. I had no idea at the time that we were setting the country on an irredeemable path. It was as exciting at the time as it is shameful now.
- fzzzy 5y agoThanks for being so honest and being willing to reevaluate your stance given life experience.
- goatherders 5y agoI've told many people 5hat for all the good and bad I've done in life, the one thing that worries me if there actually is St Peter is my work on the congressional maps. Not to self agrandize (sp) and what's done is done, but the impact continues to be awful for the state and the country as a whole.
- kongin 5y agoThe Texas lines can be made so much more efficiently Republican: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-Y7crQo44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-Y7crQo44
- labster 5y agoWhat software did you use back then? How did the process change when they started using software as a tool to gerrymander?
- NotACop182 5y agoWhooo! Hold my beer! You literally were part of the group to draw the lines. Imagine looking back and seeing the damage it has caused in the long run. I couldn’t even imagine.
- CamperBob2 5y agoI fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. - apocryphally credited to Admiral Yamamoto
- AdrianB1 5y agoWith such laws in place, if I would live in US there would be no place for people like me, not blue and not red (and partly blue and partly red on various topics). This is because none of the 2 sides are perfect and many people do not fall in one side. So what is the point?
- marcinzm 5y agoThis is a law in one state out of 50 so you have a decent choice of other options.
- goatherders 5y agoYou don't seem to understand "precedent"
- version_five 5y agoThat's a failing of democracy isn't it. One optimum is to make it so the only people in your jurisdiction are those that all want the same thing. This is an argument for a strong constitution and court system and against direct democracy.
- flailingroof 5y agoIt's certainly a failing of the flawed US democracy, but fortunately there are much better ways to implement democracies.
- marcinzm 5y agoThey all have their flaws. Parliamentary democracies, for example, are susceptible to minority extreme views having massive weight if they are needed to keep a coalition in power. Direct democracies are the opposite with minority views being ignored. edit: Also, one needs to separate the impact of the democratic system from that of the social/cultural system. A country with a very homogenous population tends to have less issues under any system of government.
- conductr 5y agoI’m life long Texan and Yes that is one purpose. It’s excessively conservative to keep hold of the state. But also a reminder that our GOP state politicians are horrible Trump humpers and morally corrupt while believing they are righteous by enacting these laws. They are the worst people but unfortunately this is the reality of Texas. It’s like pockets of high diversity and rational thinkers surrounded by hoards of wackos.
- jimbob45 5y agoAbbott is up for re-election in ~one year, though. Edit: this isn’t to say Democrats will or won’t win…but it’s also not to say Abbott won’t simply get primary’d out.
- goatherders 5y agoAnd if Beto will get out of the way and run for Lt Governor (where the real power is) so McCaughey can run for Governor we might turn things around
- CamperBob2 5y agoProbably a good idea not to threaten to take guns away from Texans, if you want to hold public office in Texas. - A former Texan
- varelse 5y agoMost of my family lives in Texas. They're appalled by this law. But yeah, don't go anywhere near their guns. They've literally called the cops on each other over their guns. They have assault rifles by their beds and vaults full of Zombie Apocalypse ammunition and they didn't think the sketch below was remotely funny... https://youtu.be/QHqB2t-DGb8 https://youtu.be/QHqB2t-DGb8
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- justin66 5y ago> it’s also not to say Abbott won’t simply get primary’d out Is a newsworthy and heavy handed anti-abortion bill likely to make a republican governor more vulnerable to a primary challenge? In Texas?
- tapvt 5y agoI think it is likely to do so. I live and TX, and most Texans, by my measure, do not want to be told what they can and cannot do.
- chriak8292 5y agoWhy is this relevant to Hacker News?
- orf 5y agoWhy isn’t it?
- belltaco 5y agoYup, people could have startups on here that can be sued for aiding and abetting abortion patients and providers.
- goatherders 5y agoBecause someone submitted it and other people are commenting on it. Democracy in action.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- trhway 5y ago>The ban leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, enabling them to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. i'm kind of puzzled by that extension of legal standing to everybody. I mean anybody who notices say a woman losing a bit of weight and that basically allows to file a suit, trigger discovery, and now the woman should prove that it was just a morning exercises? It takes Neghbourhood Watch to new, medieval, heights so to speak.
- throwawayboise 5y agoDon't live in Texas so not really paying attention to this, but normally a lawsuit is filed when one has suffered a loss or harm. How does a third party claim any loss or harm giving him standing to sue in this situation?
- fabian2k 5y agoAs far as I understand that's one of the more insane parts of this law. You don't need to show you suffered any harm or loss, absolutely anyone can sue under this law.
- philipov 5y agoIt's probably using some twisted justification like saying that abortions cause harm to society as a whole, and that gives any member of society standing.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoMore like "I'll be sent to hell if I don't save a soul". It's all selfishly motivated.
- extropy 5y agoSo raising a child in very suboptimal conditions is high chance of child turning criminal later on. Or parents dropping put of school to provide for the child. It can well be argued both ways.
- fabian2k 5y agoThis law is quite insane, and it seems entirely rational to oppose your drivers being liable simply for driving woman to a clinic.
- AdrianB1 5y agoCorrect, would they also sue bus drivers, train conductors and plane pilots? Do they need pregnancy tests for anyone taking a taxi?
- viraptor 5y agoNot disagreeing with the law being insane, but the difference there is that cab drivers drop you off / pick you up from a specific address. The other options are mass transport which takes you to the general area only, so they have no information where you're going.
- AdrianB1 5y agoThe address can be across the street of the place you want to go, right? Same for the bus station. Not sure how taxis work in Texas, but in my country I can just tell the driver a street name and then where to stop, so the driver does not know where I am going.
- MisterSandman 5y agoI'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.
- paulgb 5y ago> 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.
- valeron102 5y agoTexas? Texas, USA? the land of the free... Are we going back on hunting witches?
- labster 5y agoThey never hunted witches in Texas. Brujas maybe, but they definitely hunted Indians.
- m-ee 5y agoMexicans/Mexican Americans as well. The history of the Texas rangers is pretty sordid.
- version_five 5y agoAs much as many people here won't like it, the lesson here is that there need to be strict limits on what kind of laws government is allowed to impose, period. You can't have some system where the government gets to have broad powers on things you agree with, but somehow isn't allowed to make laws about things you don't like. The only solution is being very narrow about what government can tell you to do. Personally, this law appears so ridiculous that I think existing checks and balances will have no problem rendering it irrelevant, but it should still be a warning about what government thinks it can impose on people.
- flailingroof 5y agoThat's usually what constitutions are for.
- belltaco 5y ago> 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 or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; Where is the line drawn? Can you sue govt officials for providing electricity and building roads to abortion clinics? What about Google Maps and Navigation for showing the clinic on the map and showing the directions? Google knows everything from your searches, browsing, emails, calls and texts that you're pregnant and going to get an abortion. Can you be or act pregnant and ask people nearby for directions to the abortion place and then sue them?
- thatfrenchguy 5y agoDefinitely need to sue the head of the DOT for not removing all roads that help people get abortions, which is all roads that lead out of the state.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoThis 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 it is worth throwing the curveball regardless of the method. 3. A law that does a great job at getting pro-abortion women into placing blame on the Biden administration as inept and unable to stop Republicans effectively, hurting morale among his voter base, while boosting morale of Republicans to have gotten an even-temporary win after, what, 48 years of fighting? It can also be a political tactic. 4. Remember that ~50% of Republicans are women. This isn't all just angry men who like controlling women, and the pro-abortion side isn't very effective at reaching them.
- cforrester 5y agoI don't understand business as well as I would like to, but I wonder if these companies are sensing how much trouble they'll have keeping drivers if they can become collateral damage in social oppression. I'm not used to seeing these taxi companies offer potentially a fortune's worth of services to any of their drivers, but this law is unusually reckless, even by (de facto) abortion ban standards.
- rqrast 5y agoWhy would Texas introduce this law when it helps Biden in a major way to suppress the bad Afghanistan press? Like clockwork, the outrage ball is now in the court of the Republicans again. I guess it's up to Biden again to do something bad to keep the theater going.
- goatherders 5y agoThe bad Afghan press will have absolutely zero impact on the midterms, much less the 2024 general. This is a MUCH more significant issue here at home. Easy decision for the press to move it to the front page. And Abbott is a terrible politician and knows that even moderates hate him. He's don't everything he can to get every Trump voter on his side.
- _fat_santa 5y agoThis law is insane. So say I'm an Uber driver, woman gets into my car and I take her to Whole Foods for example. Two weeks later I get court papers saying that I'm getting sued for aiding in an abortion because the woman crossed the street and went to the abortion clinic instead of Whole Foods. I don't see how this could possibly hold up in court.
- dragonwriter 5y agoThe law is not designed to hold up in court, it is designed to use the threat of private, ideologically motivated legal process that is doomed ultimately to fail once it gets into federal court to discourage abortion providers from providing service, which is why it was also carefully crafted to evade pre-enforcement review, which would have rendered such a blatantly unconstitutional law a non-problem.
- AdrianB1 5y agoBut most Uber drivers may not have the money to defend themselves properly in court, so it is a scare tactic.
- labster 5y agoIt doesn’t have to hold up in court. If you are sued and get good representation, they just drop the case. You are not entitled to attorney’s fees under the law. If you do not have good representation, they get a $10000 minimum award. Because there are thousands of officials who individually decide cases who don’t work for the state government, you can’t just sue the attorney general to stop enforcement. The law is designed so it doesn’t have to hold up in court — it’s designed so that no one has standing to challenge it or authority to be challenged on it. No recourse equals maximum enforcement.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoTechnically speaking, the law says "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion." Thus you have a case you didn't knowingly do it. I'm only speaking technically though.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- da39a3ee 5y agoMight be nice to see major airlines, and airbnb (and competitors) offering free travel and accommodation to texan women traveling to other states for abortion-related procedures, and similar legal protection for participating airbnb hosts. Sure, it's partly lame for companies to take this as an opportunity for good PR, but free travel and accommodation might actually help, and it would be nice for republican texas to see how ostracized they are.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- okareaman 5y agoAs a former Lyft/Uber driver I feel positive about this, but I'm still not risking it because they're not paying me for my time in court.
- skohan 5y agoMaybe they could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a ballot measure to overturn it. It seems they had some success in the past with this.
- pkulak 5y agoIs standing just not a thing anymore?
- cletus 5y agoI'd be more supportive of this if it mattered but it doesn't. Worse, a lot of it is probably virtue signaling. Here's what we really need. We need a blue state to pass a law, the substance of which is this: > No person with the state of X shall possess a firearm. Any citizen but no government official may sue anyone who possesses, attempts to purchase, attempts to sell or gifts a firearm to any other person for $10,000. They may also sue anyone aiding any such person. No court shall award costs where the case is decided for the defendant. You get the idea. Then let's see how supportive conservatives and the Supreme Court are of the idea that this isn't an end run against constitutionality. The most disturbing thing to me is that such a novel law wasn't stayed pending full judicial review. It really exposes what a self-serving hypocrisy "constitutional textualism" really is. As for companies, any action less than leaving the state entirely I will view as empty posturing.
- mcphage 5y agoI get what you’re saying, but (a) the response to terrible laws being passed, isn’t to pass another terrible law, and (b) they don’t care about being hypocrites, like at all. They’ll just make up some garbage post hoc justification that everyone will see through, and continue doing what they want.