5 ms·

Don’t be ridiculous. The whole thing about this potentially causing problems for women going in for an innocent appointment is a smokescreen, just like using ed

Don’t be ridiculous. The whole thing about this potentially causing problems for women going in for an innocent appointment is a smokescreen, just like using edge cases to justify abortion as a whole (the way to test this is to ask whether such a person would agree to restricting abortion to just those cases). The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple. The thought-paralyzing “choice” rhetoric is wearing out and losing currency. Expect more to come. Pro-life sanctuary cities and towns are also making inroads.

fabian2k 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; Anyone that "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion" is liably under this new law. That's a very broad statement that can easily target a lot of people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cforrester 5y ago
> The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple. I haven't seen anyone deny that the main issue is unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. It's certainly valid to discuss the recklessness of the law's coercive mechanisms and their broader, negative side effects on unrelated groups.

fabian2k 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; Anyone that "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion" is liably under this new law. That's a very broad statement that can easily target a lot of people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cforrester 5y ago

> The real problem those on the left have with this law is that it is a major advance against abortion, pure and simple. I haven't seen anyone deny that the main issue is unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. It's certainly valid to discuss the recklessness of the law's coercive mechanisms and their broader, negative side effects on unrelated groups.