5 ms·

Honest question: As a non American, I don't know 100% about the law except that it makes abortion illegal if the foetus has a heart beat. And if someone carried

Honest question: As a non American, I don't know 100% about the law except that it makes abortion illegal if the foetus has a heart beat. And if someone carried out an abortion and you can positively prove it, you get a bounty of 10,000$. So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people and it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right?

plandis 5y ago
I’d imagine the set of people who are not in a position to raise a child has significant overlap with the set of people who cannot afford (in time, money or both) to fly to another state for an abortion.
catillac 5y ago
The law is significantly more expansive and covers anyone assisting in the abortion services, including providing things like rides to the clinic, etc. not just the person or provider.
- potiuper 5y ago
  Wonder how long Uber will last - big ol pot of venture money - have to film the locals chasin them yelling Piñata! Piñata!
  - dastbe 5y ago
    why do you think the locals would yell piñata
    - potiuper 5y ago
      Spanish, from Italian pignatta, a kind of pot, probably from dialectal pigna, pine cone (from its shape) - vehicle carrying a seed. Partners of aborters would be getting money from suing them rather than being taxed for the ride in sum.
techsupporter 5y ago
> it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right? First, we don’t know. The law is deliberately written in a vague and obtuse manner precisely to raise these kinds of questions so that everyone will avoid getting the procedure, except for those with the means and cover to not be harmed by the consequences of someone finding out. There’s an open question, for instance, if the driver of a cab taking someone to the airport to board a flight to a state to get an abortion would be deemed “aiding” the person. Second, even if it isn’t, requiring someone to leave a state to exercise a right is generally considered not good under our federal system. All rights come with limits (exactly what limits are somewhat up for debate when it comes to any particular right) but, in general, current legal standing is that a person has the right to an abortion prior to the fetus’ viability. The states should not be attempting to restrict further than that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  I don't think they call really enforce that, right? Considering "state's rights" were a big point of contention in the South?
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Recall that a major driver of tension before the US civil war was slave states using federal law (Fugitive Slave Act) to force free states to enforce slavery. The whole ‘states rights’ thing was only when it suited.
masklinn 5y ago
> So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people The cost and time involved will not just deter a lot of people, it will make this entirely impossible for a lot of the state's poorest resident, it's likely two days bare minimum and being out thousands, that's unlikely to be an option for somebody who's working minimum wages. Which is pretty much the point, the richer ones never had any issue accessing such services when they wanted to.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  it's already two days at the very minimum in Texas: you need to get an ultrasound, mandatory counseling, then must wait 24 hours before the procedure.
  - yokaze 5y ago
    I think, the main point here is not the delay, but the time you have to take out of your schedule, and you have to explain to your environment (I.e. work, taking care of family members).
zrail 5y ago
The problem with that is that "deter some people" is the whole point. This Wapo article goes into more detail but basically restrictions like these always fall disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups. So yeah if you have the money to take off work, fly to a state with legal abortion, get a hotel room for however long it takes to jump through their hoops, pay for the procedure itself, and then fly home, no problem I guess. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-abortion-lawsuits/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-...
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  The law is unconstitutional and moronic for the reasons the article outlines. That's not why it got passed. It's not always about race. It's so hard for HN to get that but here a lot of the most serious proponents of pro-life positions are conservatives....minorities tend to be socially conservative. It's a moral position. I always see people on HN stake out positions as though the world existed as from their perspective. There are different views on this.
  - davesque 5y ago
    I've at times felt sympathetic to this argument (that the whole debate on abortion boils down to an appeal to morality). However, what ended up really clarifying things for me was hearing accounts of the lengths to which women used to go to abort pregnancies before abortion was legal (and therefore safe). It's simply a fact that women often do not want to carry pregnancies to term. That will not change if we outlaw abortion. You can moralize all day long but it doesn't matter. We can either have safe abortion or we can have abortion by douching with Lysol.
    - crazy_horse 5y ago
      I'm not attempting to moralize. What I am trying to say is it didn't pass here because it was trying to target any specific group, it passed here because people tend to be conservative and for them the moral position is to be against abortion.
patcon 5y ago
I believe you're right. > less than ideal solution Worth mentioning: For us lucky tech people it's maybe nbd, but those added logistics would be a high burden for people with a few more financial to time barriers (for whom unexpected pregnancies likely create more hardship). Sorry if I'm stating sometime obvious, but I personally mostly forgot how different my life was (as a knowledge professional) until I spent some time working day labour in a factory during pandemic...!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mc32 5y ago
In Mexico till recently abortions were illegal, was sales force deciding not to do business there? Did it make motions to oppose it? If they didn’t boycott or make a fuss in Mexico what makes Texas different or France where you’re okay till 12 weeks. Will they boycott countries where abortions are more cumbersome than California? The French have a decent policy for the most part perhaps we could enact something similar.
- tobylane 5y ago
  Texas is an American state. Are you looking for a bigger difference?
  - mc32 5y ago
    Yes I’m looking for consistency in stance instead of hypocrisy.
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      It’s a lot easier to transfer employees of any skill and speciality to different states. Transferring employees between countries is a lot harder, and for some careers (e.g. tech support) going to be nearly impossible.
    - nvege 5y ago
      It's not hypocritical. Salesforce wants to keep employees that relocated to their Texas offices happy. France and Mexico have not changed the status quo, and I'd assume most of their employees in those countries have always lived there.
      - mc32 5y ago
        Will they relocate me if a state raises my tax burden and offer relocate me due to the hardship? Are they only offering the relocation to employees who might need an abortion or because you differ in opinion?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

plandis 5y ago

I’d imagine the set of people who are not in a position to raise a child has significant overlap with the set of people who cannot afford (in time, money or both) to fly to another state for an abortion.

catillac 5y ago

The law is significantly more expansive and covers anyone assisting in the abortion services, including providing things like rides to the clinic, etc. not just the person or provider.

potiuper 5y ago
Wonder how long Uber will last - big ol pot of venture money - have to film the locals chasin them yelling Piñata! Piñata!
- dastbe 5y ago
  why do you think the locals would yell piñata
  - potiuper 5y ago
    Spanish, from Italian pignatta, a kind of pot, probably from dialectal pigna, pine cone (from its shape) - vehicle carrying a seed. Partners of aborters would be getting money from suing them rather than being taxed for the ride in sum.

techsupporter 5y ago

> it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right? First, we don’t know. The law is deliberately written in a vague and obtuse manner precisely to raise these kinds of questions so that everyone will avoid getting the procedure, except for those with the means and cover to not be harmed by the consequences of someone finding out. There’s an open question, for instance, if the driver of a cab taking someone to the airport to board a flight to a state to get an abortion would be deemed “aiding” the person. Second, even if it isn’t, requiring someone to leave a state to exercise a right is generally considered not good under our federal system. All rights come with limits (exactly what limits are somewhat up for debate when it comes to any particular right) but, in general, current legal standing is that a person has the right to an abortion prior to the fetus’ viability. The states should not be attempting to restrict further than that.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anshumankmr 5y ago
I don't think they call really enforce that, right? Considering "state's rights" were a big point of contention in the South?
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Recall that a major driver of tension before the US civil war was slave states using federal law (Fugitive Slave Act) to force free states to enforce slavery. The whole ‘states rights’ thing was only when it suited.

masklinn 5y ago

> So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people The cost and time involved will not just deter a lot of people, it will make this entirely impossible for a lot of the state's poorest resident, it's likely two days bare minimum and being out thousands, that's unlikely to be an option for somebody who's working minimum wages. Which is pretty much the point, the richer ones never had any issue accessing such services when they wanted to.

tadfisher 5y ago
it's already two days at the very minimum in Texas: you need to get an ultrasound, mandatory counseling, then must wait 24 hours before the procedure.
- yokaze 5y ago
  I think, the main point here is not the delay, but the time you have to take out of your schedule, and you have to explain to your environment (I.e. work, taking care of family members).

zrail 5y ago

The problem with that is that "deter some people" is the whole point. This Wapo article goes into more detail but basically restrictions like these always fall disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups. So yeah if you have the money to take off work, fly to a state with legal abortion, get a hotel room for however long it takes to jump through their hoops, pay for the procedure itself, and then fly home, no problem I guess. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-abortion-lawsuits/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-...

crazy_horse 5y ago
The law is unconstitutional and moronic for the reasons the article outlines. That's not why it got passed. It's not always about race. It's so hard for HN to get that but here a lot of the most serious proponents of pro-life positions are conservatives....minorities tend to be socially conservative. It's a moral position. I always see people on HN stake out positions as though the world existed as from their perspective. There are different views on this.
- davesque 5y ago
  I've at times felt sympathetic to this argument (that the whole debate on abortion boils down to an appeal to morality). However, what ended up really clarifying things for me was hearing accounts of the lengths to which women used to go to abort pregnancies before abortion was legal (and therefore safe). It's simply a fact that women often do not want to carry pregnancies to term. That will not change if we outlaw abortion. You can moralize all day long but it doesn't matter. We can either have safe abortion or we can have abortion by douching with Lysol.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    I'm not attempting to moralize. What I am trying to say is it didn't pass here because it was trying to target any specific group, it passed here because people tend to be conservative and for them the moral position is to be against abortion.

patcon 5y ago

I believe you're right. > less than ideal solution Worth mentioning: For us lucky tech people it's maybe nbd, but those added logistics would be a high burden for people with a few more financial to time barriers (for whom unexpected pregnancies likely create more hardship). Sorry if I'm stating sometime obvious, but I personally mostly forgot how different my life was (as a knowledge professional) until I spent some time working day labour in a factory during pandemic...!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mc32 5y ago

In Mexico till recently abortions were illegal, was sales force deciding not to do business there? Did it make motions to oppose it? If they didn’t boycott or make a fuss in Mexico what makes Texas different or France where you’re okay till 12 weeks. Will they boycott countries where abortions are more cumbersome than California? The French have a decent policy for the most part perhaps we could enact something similar.

tobylane 5y ago
Texas is an American state. Are you looking for a bigger difference?
- mc32 5y ago
  Yes I’m looking for consistency in stance instead of hypocrisy.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    It’s a lot easier to transfer employees of any skill and speciality to different states. Transferring employees between countries is a lot harder, and for some careers (e.g. tech support) going to be nearly impossible.
  - nvege 5y ago
    It's not hypocritical. Salesforce wants to keep employees that relocated to their Texas offices happy. France and Mexico have not changed the status quo, and I'd assume most of their employees in those countries have always lived there.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Will they relocate me if a state raises my tax burden and offer relocate me due to the hardship? Are they only offering the relocation to employees who might need an abortion or because you differ in opinion?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]