and they call the Taliban medieval?

Food, recipes, fashion, sport, education, exercise, sexuality, travel.
User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

That's it - blame the indigenous humans and animals!
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Gob »

Pro-choice users on TikTok and Reddit have launched a guerrilla effort to thwart Texas’s extreme new abortion law, flooding an online tip website that encourages people to report violators of the law with false reports, Shrek memes, and porn.
Image

The law makes it illegal to help women in Texas access abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. To help enforce it, anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life established the digital tipline where people can send anonymous information about potential violations.

“Any Texan can bring a lawsuit against an abortionist or someone aiding and abetting an abortion after six weeks,” the website reads, and those proved to be violating the law can be fined a minimum of $10,000. An online form allows anyone to submit an anonymous “report” of someone illegally obtaining an abortion, including a section where images can be uploaded for proof.

Prior to the supreme court’s decision in Texas, Roe v Wade stopped laws that banned abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, generally regarded as 24 weeks.

Though the site was launched a month ago, the fake reports came flooding in on the eve of the bill’s enactment. One TikTok user said they had submitted 742 fake reports of the governor Greg Abbott getting illegal abortions.

In a tongue-in-cheek caption, the user encouraged others to do the same: “It would be a shame if TikTok crashed the ProLifeWhistleBlower website”.

Redditors said they had submitted reports blaming the state of Texas for facilitating abortions by having highways that allow people to travel to the procedure.

“Wouldn’t it be so awful if we sent in a bunch of fake tips and crashed the site? Like, Greg Abbott’s butt stinks,” one TikTok creator said.

Another TikTok user showed how he uploaded Shrek memes claiming they were images proving “my wife aborted our baby 4 weeks into her pregnancy without my consulting me”. Meanwhile, other users encouraged people to upload image attachments containing various kinds of porn.

More here...

“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Econoline »

Wouldn't any report of an abortion being performed be a HIPAA violation?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13923
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Joe Guy »

Econoline wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:34 pm
Wouldn't any report of an abortion being performed be a HIPAA violation?
If you're talking about you or me reporting someone's abortion, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure HIPAA only applies to healthcare providers and other businesses that keep people's medical records.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by BoSoxGal »

Joe is correct.

This law does present a plethora of evidentiary issues, however. How would the abortion be confirmed without a medical professional being compelled to violate HIPAA? Unless the pregnant person getting the abortion asked to bring a witness into the procedure room - and that could be prohibited by providers - how could anyone prove an abortion actually happened? It would be all speculation and rumor.

The civil court has a lower standard of evidence, but still - I’m wondering how any of the prospective suits would be effectively litigated.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13923
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:24 pm
Image
I know I'm a little slower than the average dummy here but the person who is getting the abortion isn't the one who would be sued. And a rapist father who would sue a doctor who performed an abortion for his daughter wouldn't want to be in court telling everyone about his daughter's pregnancy, would he?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Scooter »

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; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
A woman seeking an abortion would presumably be "aid[ing] or abet[ting]" by bringing herself to the facility where the abortion takes place, and/or by "paying for...an abortion". No other language in the statute would appear to preclude that interpretation.

And I wouldn't put anything past a man who would rape his own daughter, so there's no telling what he might do. If he was tried and/or convicted of her rape based on her complaint, for example, he might bring the suit in retaliation. Nothing would seem to preclude that.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13923
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 2:25 am
A woman seeking an abortion would presumably be "aid[ing] or abet[ting]" by bringing herself to the facility where the abortion takes place, and/or by "paying for...an abortion". No other language in the statute would appear to preclude that interpretation.
That's seems like a bit of a stretch of the term "aid and abet" since the term generally means to assist someone else. Also, the law seems to be some sort of a legal maneuver to treat abortion as though it's illegal even though it's not. In other words, I'm seeing it as though it's not illegal to get an abortion in Texas but it is illegal to perform one there.
Scooter wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 2:25 am
And I wouldn't put anything past a man who would rape his own daughter, so there's no telling what he might do. If he was tried and/or convicted of her rape based on her complaint, for example, he might bring the suit in retaliation. Nothing would seem to preclude that.
You've got a point there. I can see how unpredictable the actions of a rapist father in Texas might be but I still can't understand how under this new Texas law a person who receives an abortion could be sued.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Scooter »

Upon additional reading, the hypothetical suit could not, in theory, be brought, because of this clause:
Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.
I say "in theory" because exercise of that section would presumably necessitate a criminal conviction, which, as we know, does not occur in the overwhelming majority of rapes. So such a case could still be brought by the rapist unless and until he is convicted in criminal court.

This clause would, in theory, prevent an action against a woman seeking an abortion:
This subchapter may not be construed to:
(1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter
But that prohibition exists only in theory because this clause:
Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney ’s fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.
means that there is no means of penalizing those who bring frivolous actions under this law. A woman who is sued under this law will be forced to defend herself against any and all comers, and has no recourse to recoup her legal fees. The law can therefore be used to harass women ad infinitum.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Econoline »

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Econoline »

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Interesting piece in The Atlantic by David Frum who was once a speechwriter for GW Bush. His point is that Texas Republicans may come to rue this piece of legislation because of the backlash it will create. He draws an analogy to Prohibition, in which people who drank did not really get fired up as long as it was just talk and the anti-alcohol folk did not achieve their goals. Then when the 18th Amendment was passed, people got organized. It took them 13 years but eventually a set of laws with some reasonable constraints on alcohol production and sale were passed.

A quote from the piece:
Pre-Texas, Republican politicians worried a lot about losing a primary to a more pro-life opponent, but little about a backlash if they won the primary by promising to criminalize millions of American women.

That one-way option has just come to an end. Most American voters have quietly understood for a long time that most politicians who claim to be “pro-life” are hypocrites. These politicians do not really mean what they say, or anyway, they do not really intend to do what they say. You might imagine that this assumption of hypocrisy would hurt. Sometimes it has. More often, though, it has protected politicians from accountability for the policies they advocate.
I'm not sure I buy his argument and it's difficult to see the silver lining here if indeed there is one. I would hope that in these much more connected days it will not take 13 years to reverse this.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by BoSoxGal »

Given that Texas has been flirting with going blue since 2018, I would think that the uproar over this legislation - which does not enjoy the support of a majority of Texans - might be just the thing to push her over the edge into sanity in 2022 and beyond.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

NYT is reporting that a Texas judge has prevented, at least temporarily, Texas Right to Life from suing Planned Parenthood under the new law.

Much as I applaud the result, I am a little unclear how a judge can say 'That law does not apply to you."

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Jarlaxle »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:02 am
Joe is correct.

This law does present a plethora of evidentiary issues, however. How would the abortion be confirmed without a medical professional being compelled to violate HIPAA? Unless the pregnant person getting the abortion asked to bring a witness into the procedure room - and that could be prohibited by providers - how could anyone prove an abortion actually happened? It would be all speculation and rumor.

The civil court has a lower standard of evidence, but still - I’m wondering how any of the prospective suits would be effectively litigated.
Wouldn't ANY information regarding patients and procedures (up to and including whether the woman in question had actually seen a particular doctor) be protected by doctor-patient privilege?

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Econoline »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:02 am
This law does present a plethora of evidentiary issues, however. How would the abortion be confirmed without a medical professional being compelled to violate HIPAA? Unless the pregnant person getting the abortion asked to bring a witness into the procedure room - and that could be prohibited by providers - how could anyone prove an abortion actually happened? It would be all speculation and rumor.

The civil court has a lower standard of evidence, but still - I’m wondering how any of the prospective suits would be effectively litigated.
Even before having to prove that an abortion took place, wouldn't a plaintiff have to prove that the woman in question was even pregnant? How would that work? :loon

For that matter, proving that the fluttering electrical activity misnamed a "fetal heartbeat" was detected before an abortion was performed could only be done with the use of an ultrasound scanner and related equipment in a (HIPAA-protected) medical setting such as a hospital or a doctor's office.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Scooter »

It is an offence under this law to perform an abortion without having performed the test. So the onus would be on the doctor to provide the test results to prove that the test was performed and no "heartbeat" was detected.

Determining whether there was a pregnancy and an abortion in the first place is another question. Would be interesting to know what offer of proof would be required in order to bring suit. Will a court allow medical records to be subpoenaed to provide such evidence, and for what cause?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Gob »

Four years ago, when I was a 22-year-old college student in Virginia, I found out I was pregnant.

I knew I was late, maybe a bit longer than a week, but that wasn’t unusual – I’d always had irregular periods. Like I had many times before, I picked up a test just in case. It came back positive.

I didn’t tell anyone at school I was pregnant, but I called my mom. She assured me it would be OK, and told me to schedule an appointment nearby, rather than drive home to New York. She was right; I probably didn’t need a seven-hour car ride of contemplative dread.

I never considered keeping it, and the why is not important. Regardless of my reasoning, know that no one wants to have an abortion. It is a decision made out of personal necessity. I still think about it sometimes, riddled with whispers of unexpected guilt that I wonder if all women experience. The one feeling I didn’t expect when thinking about my abortion was gratitude for its legality.

On Wednesday, the supreme court failed to block Texas’s draconian law banning abortions after six weeks and offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who reports illegal abortions in the state. The six-week timeframe comes from the state’s “heartbeat bill”, which cites the earliest time an ultrasound can detect a “fetal heartbeat” as the point of viability. Many doctors consider that fetal development to be electrical flickering, not a real heartbeat, and have called “heartbeat” legislation misleading. As a demarcation point, it’s also drastically earlier than Roe v Wade, which recognizes the point of viability at 24 to 28 weeks.


The majority of abortions, including mine, take place after six weeks. That’s because it typically takes more than two weeks to figure out you’re pregnant, make an appointment to get an abortion, and get together the money to pay for the procedure, which costs $508 on average in the United States.

It took me two weeks to get an abortion after I discovered I was pregnant. When I called my local Planned Parenthood, the earliest they could squeeze me in was a week later. That appointment wasn’t for the abortion itself; it was just to confirm the pregnancy. They told me I was six weeks pregnant, which meant that when I took the home test I was five weeks. I wasn’t able to schedule the abortion for another week, so I had it at seven weeks – a week too late in Texas today.

It’s not uncommon to wait weeks for an abortion appointment. Clinics are woefully underfunded. In 2019, Planned Parenthood gave up $60m in federal funding after Trump forbid Title X clinics from referring patients to abortion clinics. The Title X program, which serves low-income women, provides funds for a range of sexual health services, like STD testing and pregnancy prevention.


Continues here....
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: and they call the Taliban medieval?

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Just going to poke my head in here and say that a lot of people are talking about this new law in terms of how it would even prohibit abortions of a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest.   I'd be very interested in seeing some VERIFIED, DOCUMENTED statistics as to just what percentage of elective abortions are performed to terminate a pregnancy that was the result of one of those two actions (rape or incest).

While I am sure that there have been instances of pregnancy as the result of one or the other, I don't for a minute believe that this is the PRIMARY or even a significant factor in why most women seek an elective abortion.   Sure, you can couch it in whatever terms you prefer, including the right to control their own bodily functions, but maybe they should have controlled a different function when they started he-ing and she-ing.

OK. I get it — it's legal under the current interpretations of Roe v Wade, so go ahead; I won't stop you if you get knocked up and want to perform retroactive birth control, any more than I would slap a bottle of beer out of your hand or your double bacon cheeesburger out of your mouth, regardless of how I personally feel about the morality of abortion, the need to self-medicate with alcohol, or the treatment of animals in the meat-processing industry.   But let's be honest with ourselves.  Basically, someone played the odds and lost, and now they're calling in the vaginal version of "Roto-Rooter" to clean up the mess.  
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Post Reply