7 ms·

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/l

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

defterGoose 4y ago
You've got the de facto situation in Texas though. Anyone being allowed to sue you for getting an abortion effectively means that the "state" can come after you. Make no mistake, these laws aim to harm anyone involved. The entire context of this discussion stems from the decision. You're wrong, and frankly, a little churlish.
- core-utility 4y ago
  Texas' situation is specifically worded for the state not to come after you. It's a citizen's matter. "this statute does not limit who can bring suit, so long as it is a private citizen" Additionally, in the Texas case you can't sue the mother, only those who aid in performing the abortion.
  - Teknoman117 4y ago
    It's hard to say the state isn't coming after you in this case though. Why the hell does my neighbor get to care if a specific doctor performed an abortion? Why can they launch a civil case against and be compensated financially for something that doesn't affect them in any way?
    - core-utility 4y ago
      So legally speaking, the person in a civil suit typically has to be the one harmed, or have some major interest in the harming of someone their connected to (if that person can't bring a suit themselves). Texas' working of this is that the baby/fetus/whatever you choose to call it was killed and can't bring suit itself, and they're explicitly allowing the society to bring suit on behalf of that.
      - epakai 4y ago
        The way you do that is via a state prosecutor. It is absurd to hand standing to every citizen without any limitation.
        core-utility 4y ago
        Prosecutors prosecute crimes, in criminal court cases. Citizens can only bring civil cases. The public can't have a prosecutor bring a civil case.
  - defterGoose 4y ago
    My suspicion is that anyone can be considered a "private citizen" in a certain context. Trump certainly thought he could throw away his notes while in office. What do you want to bet that TX judges will recognize some county-registrar-who discovers-an-abortion's right to bring suit as an individual? At least when the state itself is officially bringing suit, there are a limited number of individuals who can decide to sue you. In reality, what will happen is that if the TX supreme court disallows an to state employee from participating in the suit, there will be a network of state employees who are able to inform others who are able to sue.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest I disagree, this is an example of why data collection can be scary. Data that was perfectly inane yesterday can be used against people tomorrow. How much data do the powers-that-be have access to that can be used similarly in the future? The dystopian view is that they'll be able to paint any narrative if you fall in their crosshairs. Of course who "they" are is subject to change.
- adamc 4y ago
  Living in Texas, I strongly agree with you.
- core-utility 4y ago
  But that's always been true, data can always be used against you regardless of what the laws are.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    You are fully and entirely correct. Now, really, ponder on that. Your instagram/Facebook likes alone reveal your gender, sexuality, relationship status and more. Add in a touch of PII to narrow it down to a single person.
justinsaccount 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - justinsaccount 4y ago
    It's unfortunate that mean words can get you banned but not outright lies and misinformation.
    - dang 4y ago
      We don't have a truth meter or a mind reader, and in any case people are allowed to be wrong. Most of us are wrong about most things. If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, you should make a respectful case for the truth as you understand it. Alternatively, if you don't want to take the time to do that, chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet and leave it. Crude insults aren't just against HN's rules, they also are not in your interest, because they discredit your own argument. That's the worst way to represent your point of view, and in the case you happen to be right, you end up discrediting the truth for everybody. Not a win. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - justinsaccount 4y ago
        Thanks. I admit I was frustrated by core-utility's outright lie (or at least ignorance) about what is going on and could have explained things better.
arolihas 4y ago
Women have been prosecuted for miscarriages before, it's not baseless. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuting-pregnancy-loss https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  > One of California's senior legal officials has shown his support for a young mother charged with murder after her stillborn baby boy was found to have toxic levels of meth in his system, reports Daily Mail. https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-unborn-child-smoking-meth-days-before-delivery-splits-state https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-u...
  - arolihas 4y ago
    Yeah, this is one of the examples of the mother being prosecuted mentioned in the article, thanks for emphasizing my point!
    - origin_path 4y ago
    - ars 4y ago
      That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it. Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child? I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.
      - arolihas 4y ago
        The original comment said that prosecuting a mother for the death of a fetus was not a thing. I shared an article with multiple examples of that showing he was misinformed. That was my whole point. I don’t know what point you think I was making that was refuted, and I really don’t want to derail the conversation and get into the weeds of whether this particular case of stillbirth was a miscarriage or an abortion or manslaughter or murder. Have a nice day.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
The legal basis for the roe decision is "a general right to privacy" which was argued on the basis that the 10th amendment reserves unenumerated rights(0) to be regulated by the states, then preserved for the individual. Since the constitution makes no mention of privacy, if you believe it's a right, it would fall into the category of "unenumerated". IIRC prior to roe, there are no supreme court decisions about the right to privacy, so it's considered the foundational legal precedent for privacy. Depending on how the arguments in the most recent case are written (I have not read them) it could be interpreted as no roe, no privacy, unless it's explicitly carved out by other decisions subsequent to roe (1) (0) Technically the amendment makes a statement about powers, so you have to consider "rights" to be the inverse of "government power" for this argument to make sense. (1) technically the constitution does not give the supreme court the power of judicial review - it was carved out of whole cloth by the courts itself, which is exactly the situation that the constitution is supposed to prevent Congress from doing (not surprisingly it's largely failed at that too) so the American system currently has gaping hole(s) in its legitimacy that you must look aside to accept all of these premises.
- Eric_WVGG 4y ago
  ^ This. Roe vs. Wade wasn't about abortion, it was about privacy. That's why they're already talking about voiding gay and interracial marriage bans, they were based on that precedent. Here's a consequence that should speak to tech-types: there are two arguments against mandatory NSA backdoors into encryption used by tech companies, 1) a fundamental right to privacy, and 2) these backdoors are intrinsically hackable. The argument against #2 is "nuh-uh" and enough of our lawmakers are technically illiterate enough to believe that. #1 was based on judicial precedent that just went down the toilet.
  - buchoo 4y ago
    The interracial marriage ban precedes Roe v. Wade by over 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
    - 4y ago
swearwolf 4y ago
Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana for inducing a miscarriage through abortion drugs. Indiana also charged Bei Bei Shuei with murder and attempted feticide after her baby died following her suicide attempt. Not every state seems intent on charging women, but I think it’s hopelessly naive to believe that none will.
- core-utility 4y ago
  In both cases, intentional harm or neglect was caused by a person resulting in the death of the baby. I see no difference between this and someone being charged for double homicide in killing a pregnant mother. Still doesn't prove the point of any state aiming to prosecute a mother seeking legal options in another state.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    The goalposts will move. These two were the test cases, to find out how much appetite there was for prosecuting a mother for losing her pregnancy, using two less sympathetic defendants. States like Indiana will continue to follow that line of reasoning as far as they can. The people who have worked for decades to overturn Roe believe in their hearts that abortion is murder. They aren’t going to be okay with “murder” being legal in other states, or “murder” tourism. The end result of all of this is a federal ban on abortion.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Slippery slope argument aside, do you in your heart think that throwing a live baby in the trash to suffocate should be legal (assuming the facts are correct)?
      - swearwolf 4y ago
        No
        4y ago
falcolas 4y ago
Have you looked at Tennessee's law? Not being the target of a specific law doesn't mean you aren't culpable. For example, if you drive someone to and from a bank robbery, you're still culpable for the bank robbery. But others (read lawyers) say it better. "Tennessee law does not criminalize women who have abortions, but that does not mean they can't be prosecuted. In fact, the women could be charged with conspiracy or solicitation for seeking an abortion. And [Constitutional attorney David] Raybin said that with abortion being illegal, the father of a child could now sue a doctor or mother for performing the procedure." And frankly, does it matter if the recipient of an abortion won't be prosecuted, if they can't legally be a recipient? See the case of the 10 year old who was recently evacuated from Ohio to get an abortion.
kxyvr 4y ago
Yes, I believe women have been prosecuted for self-inducing abortions using an abortifacient even prior to the current court ruling. For example: https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortion... https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-20150611-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-2015061... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail-for-helping-her-daughter-have-an-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail... There are more examples. The point is that those who received an abortion have been prosecuted even prior to Roe being overturned. It stands to reason that they will be prosecuted now.

defterGoose 4y ago

You've got the de facto situation in Texas though. Anyone being allowed to sue you for getting an abortion effectively means that the "state" can come after you. Make no mistake, these laws aim to harm anyone involved. The entire context of this discussion stems from the decision. You're wrong, and frankly, a little churlish.

core-utility 4y ago
Texas' situation is specifically worded for the state not to come after you. It's a citizen's matter. "this statute does not limit who can bring suit, so long as it is a private citizen" Additionally, in the Texas case you can't sue the mother, only those who aid in performing the abortion.
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  It's hard to say the state isn't coming after you in this case though. Why the hell does my neighbor get to care if a specific doctor performed an abortion? Why can they launch a civil case against and be compensated financially for something that doesn't affect them in any way?
  - core-utility 4y ago
    So legally speaking, the person in a civil suit typically has to be the one harmed, or have some major interest in the harming of someone their connected to (if that person can't bring a suit themselves). Texas' working of this is that the baby/fetus/whatever you choose to call it was killed and can't bring suit itself, and they're explicitly allowing the society to bring suit on behalf of that.
    - epakai 4y ago
      The way you do that is via a state prosecutor. It is absurd to hand standing to every citizen without any limitation.
      - core-utility 4y ago
        Prosecutors prosecute crimes, in criminal court cases. Citizens can only bring civil cases. The public can't have a prosecutor bring a civil case.
- defterGoose 4y ago
  My suspicion is that anyone can be considered a "private citizen" in a certain context. Trump certainly thought he could throw away his notes while in office. What do you want to bet that TX judges will recognize some county-registrar-who discovers-an-abortion's right to bring suit as an individual? At least when the state itself is officially bringing suit, there are a limited number of individuals who can decide to sue you. In reality, what will happen is that if the TX supreme court disallows an to state employee from participating in the suit, there will be a network of state employees who are able to inform others who are able to sue.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest I disagree, this is an example of why data collection can be scary. Data that was perfectly inane yesterday can be used against people tomorrow. How much data do the powers-that-be have access to that can be used similarly in the future? The dystopian view is that they'll be able to paint any narrative if you fall in their crosshairs. Of course who "they" are is subject to change.

adamc 4y ago
Living in Texas, I strongly agree with you.
core-utility 4y ago
But that's always been true, data can always be used against you regardless of what the laws are.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  You are fully and entirely correct. Now, really, ponder on that. Your instagram/Facebook likes alone reveal your gender, sexuality, relationship status and more. Add in a touch of PII to narrow it down to a single person.

justinsaccount 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- justinsaccount 4y ago
  It's unfortunate that mean words can get you banned but not outright lies and misinformation.
  - dang 4y ago
    We don't have a truth meter or a mind reader, and in any case people are allowed to be wrong. Most of us are wrong about most things. If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, you should make a respectful case for the truth as you understand it. Alternatively, if you don't want to take the time to do that, chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet and leave it. Crude insults aren't just against HN's rules, they also are not in your interest, because they discredit your own argument. That's the worst way to represent your point of view, and in the case you happen to be right, you end up discrediting the truth for everybody. Not a win. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - justinsaccount 4y ago
      Thanks. I admit I was frustrated by core-utility's outright lie (or at least ignorance) about what is going on and could have explained things better.

arolihas 4y ago

Women have been prosecuted for miscarriages before, it's not baseless. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuting-pregnancy-loss https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...

vorpalhex 4y ago
> One of California's senior legal officials has shown his support for a young mother charged with murder after her stillborn baby boy was found to have toxic levels of meth in his system, reports Daily Mail. https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-unborn-child-smoking-meth-days-before-delivery-splits-state https://meaww.com/who-is-chelsea-becker-jailed-for-killing-u...
- arolihas 4y ago
  Yeah, this is one of the examples of the mother being prosecuted mentioned in the article, thanks for emphasizing my point!
  - origin_path 4y ago
  - ars 4y ago
    That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it. Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child? I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.
    - arolihas 4y ago
      The original comment said that prosecuting a mother for the death of a fetus was not a thing. I shared an article with multiple examples of that showing he was misinformed. That was my whole point. I don’t know what point you think I was making that was refuted, and I really don’t want to derail the conversation and get into the weeds of whether this particular case of stillbirth was a miscarriage or an abortion or manslaughter or murder. Have a nice day.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

The legal basis for the roe decision is "a general right to privacy" which was argued on the basis that the 10th amendment reserves unenumerated rights(0) to be regulated by the states, then preserved for the individual. Since the constitution makes no mention of privacy, if you believe it's a right, it would fall into the category of "unenumerated". IIRC prior to roe, there are no supreme court decisions about the right to privacy, so it's considered the foundational legal precedent for privacy. Depending on how the arguments in the most recent case are written (I have not read them) it could be interpreted as no roe, no privacy, unless it's explicitly carved out by other decisions subsequent to roe (1) (0) Technically the amendment makes a statement about powers, so you have to consider "rights" to be the inverse of "government power" for this argument to make sense. (1) technically the constitution does not give the supreme court the power of judicial review - it was carved out of whole cloth by the courts itself, which is exactly the situation that the constitution is supposed to prevent Congress from doing (not surprisingly it's largely failed at that too) so the American system currently has gaping hole(s) in its legitimacy that you must look aside to accept all of these premises.

Eric_WVGG 4y ago
^ This. Roe vs. Wade wasn't about abortion, it was about privacy. That's why they're already talking about voiding gay and interracial marriage bans, they were based on that precedent. Here's a consequence that should speak to tech-types: there are two arguments against mandatory NSA backdoors into encryption used by tech companies, 1) a fundamental right to privacy, and 2) these backdoors are intrinsically hackable. The argument against #2 is "nuh-uh" and enough of our lawmakers are technically illiterate enough to believe that. #1 was based on judicial precedent that just went down the toilet.
- buchoo 4y ago
  The interracial marriage ban precedes Roe v. Wade by over 6 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
  - 4y ago

swearwolf 4y ago

Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Indiana for inducing a miscarriage through abortion drugs. Indiana also charged Bei Bei Shuei with murder and attempted feticide after her baby died following her suicide attempt. Not every state seems intent on charging women, but I think it’s hopelessly naive to believe that none will.

core-utility 4y ago
In both cases, intentional harm or neglect was caused by a person resulting in the death of the baby. I see no difference between this and someone being charged for double homicide in killing a pregnant mother. Still doesn't prove the point of any state aiming to prosecute a mother seeking legal options in another state.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  The goalposts will move. These two were the test cases, to find out how much appetite there was for prosecuting a mother for losing her pregnancy, using two less sympathetic defendants. States like Indiana will continue to follow that line of reasoning as far as they can. The people who have worked for decades to overturn Roe believe in their hearts that abortion is murder. They aren’t going to be okay with “murder” being legal in other states, or “murder” tourism. The end result of all of this is a federal ban on abortion.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Slippery slope argument aside, do you in your heart think that throwing a live baby in the trash to suffocate should be legal (assuming the facts are correct)?
    - swearwolf 4y ago
      No
      - 4y ago

falcolas 4y ago

Have you looked at Tennessee's law? Not being the target of a specific law doesn't mean you aren't culpable. For example, if you drive someone to and from a bank robbery, you're still culpable for the bank robbery. But others (read lawyers) say it better. "Tennessee law does not criminalize women who have abortions, but that does not mean they can't be prosecuted. In fact, the women could be charged with conspiracy or solicitation for seeking an abortion. And [Constitutional attorney David] Raybin said that with abortion being illegal, the father of a child could now sue a doctor or mother for performing the procedure." And frankly, does it matter if the recipient of an abortion won't be prosecuted, if they can't legally be a recipient? See the case of the 10 year old who was recently evacuated from Ohio to get an abortion.

kxyvr 4y ago

Yes, I believe women have been prosecuted for self-inducing abortions using an abortifacient even prior to the current court ruling. For example: https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions https://newrepublic.com/article/111368/the-rise-diy-abortion... https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-20150611-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abortion-murder-2015061... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail-for-helping-her-daughter-have-an-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/magazine/a-mother-in-jail... There are more examples. The point is that those who received an abortion have been prosecuted even prior to Roe being overturned. It stands to reason that they will be prosecuted now.