7 ms·

To add to this: the whole point of the private right to action is so that anti-abortion groups can target individuals in order to create precedent-setting cases

by cirgue 4y ago

To add to this: the whole point of the private right to action is so that anti-abortion groups can target individuals in order to create precedent-setting cases. This is a mechanism that is designed to be used by well-funded groups. The threat model here isn’t some rando deciding they want to sue you, it’s a team of determined lawyers that absolutely will take your case as far as they possibly can.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> the whole point of the private right to action is so that anti-abortion groups can target individuals in order to create precedent-setting cases. Fairly sure this is wrong. The point was to create a mechanism to sue various people "in orbit" around an abortion without involving state officials. This was supposed to "immunize" the process from any Roe v. Wade-related block. With Roe v. Wade now struck down, Texas can basically do whatever "it" wants w.r.t abortion, and the federal government cannot intervene. SB8 at this point is possibly (just possibly) a way to reduce state spending on abortion legal cases, but not much more beyond that.
- flave 4y ago
  You're right. It's directly (and I believe explicitly) modelled on the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA creates a model in which private citizens can and do bring lawsuits against all types of organisations for any type of harm they can define. This has spun out a cottage industry of disabled people who's full time occupation is visiting everything from websites to restaurants, being harmed and bringing lawsuits. While that may sound like a bad thing, it is in fact a very very cost effective way of enforcing the law quite effectively without bureaucratic bloat. Strangely, it's been quite successful. The history of why this decision was made is very interesting. For all your devs, this is why large American companies care so much about accessibility on their websites - because it creates an almost unlimited liability on their end if you do it badly. Companies now scan websites for accessibility as soon as they're launched, then others will buy the set of companies which 'fail', then visit those sites in order to be harmed. It's an interesting little cottage industry which keeps legitimate disability rights enforced quite nicely without too big a government.
wolverine876 4y ago
What makes you say that? My impression is that it fits the pattern of trying to disrupt society and government and create a vigilante citizenry, similar to encouraging people to arm themselves and use their firearms to prevent crimes.
- homonculus1 4y ago
  - jasonshaev 4y ago
    No idea what you're even trying to reference in your second sentence, but the first sentence "community law enforcement" is a red flag in my book. The law creates a fiscal incentive for people to report their neighbors for actions that were federally protected at the time this law was passed. Neighbor vs. neighbor. Citizen vs. citizen. We spend more on policing than any country in the world and yet still need to deputize citizens in a heavily armed state? It's not my neighbor's damn business to know if someone in my household seeks an abortion. If fiscally incentivizing vigilantism isn't dystopian I don't know what is.
    - homonculus1 4y ago
      Deputization and vigilantism are antonyms, your framing is incoherent. An elected legislature sanctioning civil action is "dystopian", but rioting and arson? Intimidating judges at their homes? Laundering a decade of domestic terrorism into universities and district attorneys' offices? Never heard of that stuff! Not surprising to me, just absurd.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Nobody understands why you are talking about these other crimes. ?
        homonculus1 4y ago
jasonshaev 4y ago
The purpose of the private right to action was to get around Roe/Casey prior to the Supreme Court overruling both cases. The law was specifically designed to evade judicial review. As a private plaintiff, you can typically sue a state official that is charged with enforcing a law in federal court on constitutional grounds. SB8 is written in such a way that state officials are barred from enforcing the law. Thus, it is effectively impossible to challenge in federal court because there is no state official that enforces the law, only private citizens, and thus there is no proper defendant.

by cirgue 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> the whole point of the private right to action is so that anti-abortion groups can target individuals in order to create precedent-setting cases. Fairly sure this is wrong. The point was to create a mechanism to sue various people "in orbit" around an abortion without involving state officials. This was supposed to "immunize" the process from any Roe v. Wade-related block. With Roe v. Wade now struck down, Texas can basically do whatever "it" wants w.r.t abortion, and the federal government cannot intervene. SB8 at this point is possibly (just possibly) a way to reduce state spending on abortion legal cases, but not much more beyond that.

flave 4y ago
You're right. It's directly (and I believe explicitly) modelled on the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA creates a model in which private citizens can and do bring lawsuits against all types of organisations for any type of harm they can define. This has spun out a cottage industry of disabled people who's full time occupation is visiting everything from websites to restaurants, being harmed and bringing lawsuits. While that may sound like a bad thing, it is in fact a very very cost effective way of enforcing the law quite effectively without bureaucratic bloat. Strangely, it's been quite successful. The history of why this decision was made is very interesting. For all your devs, this is why large American companies care so much about accessibility on their websites - because it creates an almost unlimited liability on their end if you do it badly. Companies now scan websites for accessibility as soon as they're launched, then others will buy the set of companies which 'fail', then visit those sites in order to be harmed. It's an interesting little cottage industry which keeps legitimate disability rights enforced quite nicely without too big a government.

wolverine876 4y ago

What makes you say that? My impression is that it fits the pattern of trying to disrupt society and government and create a vigilante citizenry, similar to encouraging people to arm themselves and use their firearms to prevent crimes.

homonculus1 4y ago
- jasonshaev 4y ago
  No idea what you're even trying to reference in your second sentence, but the first sentence "community law enforcement" is a red flag in my book. The law creates a fiscal incentive for people to report their neighbors for actions that were federally protected at the time this law was passed. Neighbor vs. neighbor. Citizen vs. citizen. We spend more on policing than any country in the world and yet still need to deputize citizens in a heavily armed state? It's not my neighbor's damn business to know if someone in my household seeks an abortion. If fiscally incentivizing vigilantism isn't dystopian I don't know what is.
  - homonculus1 4y ago
    Deputization and vigilantism are antonyms, your framing is incoherent. An elected legislature sanctioning civil action is "dystopian", but rioting and arson? Intimidating judges at their homes? Laundering a decade of domestic terrorism into universities and district attorneys' offices? Never heard of that stuff! Not surprising to me, just absurd.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Nobody understands why you are talking about these other crimes. ?
      - homonculus1 4y ago

jasonshaev 4y ago

The purpose of the private right to action was to get around Roe/Casey prior to the Supreme Court overruling both cases. The law was specifically designed to evade judicial review. As a private plaintiff, you can typically sue a state official that is charged with enforcing a law in federal court on constitutional grounds. SB8 is written in such a way that state officials are barred from enforcing the law. Thus, it is effectively impossible to challenge in federal court because there is no state official that enforces the law, only private citizens, and thus there is no proper defendant.